BBC Plan New Climate Change Propaganda Blitz
By Paul Homewood
h/t Robin Guenier
The BBC long ago gave up any pretence of impartiality and objectivity when it comes to climate change.
Now they have unashamedly become advocates for the most extreme forms of climate alarmism, preaching from on high about their new religion.
This year we can look forward to the propaganda being ramped up even further, with a year-long series of “special programming” (no change there then!)
The BBC has announced plans for a year-long series of special programming and coverage on climate change.
A raft of news services and shows are planned as part of the Our Planet Matters project.
These include a new monthly Climate Check video feature from BBC Weather, and coverage of debates and events around the globe.
Digital, TV and radio outlets will all take part.
Sir David Attenborough also plans a new hour-long documentary for the Our Planet Matters programmes. Extinction: The Facts will examine the fragile state of the natural world.
"We have to realise that this is not playing games," Sir David told the BBC. "This is an urgent problem that has to be solved and, what’s more, we know how to do it."
How can I follow?
Online, the BBC will produce new explainers, interactive tools and guides to help sort through the jargon and analyse what’s happening in the UK and across our changing planet. You can check back on everything that has been published so far here.
BBC.com will launch Future Planet, looking at how people around the world are confronting the problems created by climate change.
In a new series for BBC Two, Ade Adepitan travels to countries on the frontline of climate change to find out what humanity is doing to face up to possibly the greatest challenge in our history in a three part series, Ade on the Frontline of Climate Change.
Radio 4’s PM programme will air The Environment in 10 Objects. Each episode will look at the environmental impact of one household item, and how we can respond to the climate crisis at home.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Devastating wildfires in Australia have raised even greater awareness of the dangers posed by climate change
A new weekly podcast on the World Service will examine climate change from scientific, business and policy perspectives with the help of journalists from around the world.
BBC Weather meanwhile plans to bring in a monthly Climate Check service, to help audiences see trends behind the daily weather.
Adam Bullimore, head of BBC Weather, says it will be a chance to "share something more with audiences than just the typical weather forecast", and will focus on the impact of data like CO2 emissions and Arctic sea ice measurements on our planet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51104776
As for that new Attenborough programme, this is what he has to say:
"The moment of crisis has come" in efforts to tackle climate change, Sir David Attenborough has warned.
According to the renowned naturalist and broadcaster, "we have been putting things off for year after year".
"As I speak, south east Australia is on fire. Why? Because the temperatures of the Earth are increasing," he said.
Sir David’s comments came in a BBC News interview to launch a year of special coverage on the subject of climate change.
Scientists say climate change is one of several factors behind the Australian fires; others include how forests are managed and natural patterns in the weather.
Sir David told me it was "palpable nonsense" for some politicians and commentators to suggest that the Australian fires were nothing to do with the world becoming warmer.
"We know perfectly well," he said, that human activity is behind the heating of the planet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51123638
I’m not sure who he is referring to when he says “we have been putting things off for year after year".
The UK has been at the forefront of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, having cut them by 30% since 2008. (Based on BP data up to 2018). Reductions in the EU and US have been slower, 18% and 11% respectively, but still going in the right direction.
However emissions in non-OECD countries have risen by 27% over the same period, resulting in a global increase of 11%.
Attenborough does actually recognise this problem, when he says:
“Where on the bigger scale are these decisions needed to come next? Answer: China. If the Chinese come and say: ’Not because we are worried about the world, but for our own reasons, we are going to take major steps to curb our carbon output because our climate is changing, we are going to do it,’ everybody else would fall into line, one thinks. That would be the big change that one could hope would happen.”
All very well in theory, but it ain’t going to happen is it, no matter how much Attenborough proselytizes about it. Maybe the Chinese don’t see the climatic disasters he does!
He finishes by saying:
"This is an urgent problem that has to be solved and, what’s more, we know how to do it – that’s the paradoxical thing, that we’re refusing to take steps that we know have to be taken."
By which he means stop using fossil fuels. However, there is a very simple reason why the world refuses to “take those steps”.
Quite simply, there is no evidence that the world can give up fossil fuels just like that, when they currently supply 85% of its energy. It is naive in the extreme to believe that these can rapidly be swapped out for renewable energy, currently running at 4%.
Given the desire of billions living in developing nations to improve their lives, such an energy transition would be disastrous.
Is Attenborough really prepared to the world’s population sacrificed on the altar of his eco-extremism?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Since when has brainwashing been part of the BBC’s charter?
The charter has been ignored since Harrabin’s 28gate, and the BBC is in denial of the fact.
Good that they are launching their propaganda now, as the UK weather turns bitterley cold. Winds will stay predominantly from the North until February (my wx forecasting is a better than BBCs). Should see ice and sub-zero temps over whole of UK for most nights of next 2 weeks and many areas will get snow, even though we were told we’d never see snow again. Heck, BBC just can’t get it right.
I would guess this is a government remit in exchange for leaving the licence fee issue for the moment. The government needs to be seen to be successful in Glasgow and Boris has already been sparring with Nicola Sturgeon for bragging rights.
It has been a government initiative: https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/17873293.mp-claire-perry-helping-uk-39-s-bid-host-climate-conference/
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/06/18/uk-looks-certain-host-2020-un-climate-talks-deal-italy/
As there will be events in Italy, does it mean they are going to bring in the Pope to stand alongside St Greta. Of course there will be no extra flying of delegates between the two locations will there.
Hopefully there will be crisis overload and people will ignore it. When AttBBC did their latest 10pm News blasts, ITV went up against them, leading with the Harry-Meghan “crisis”.
It was ever thus:
“In little more than a dozen years (1938) radio has become a major channel of communication. It is an instrument of propaganda which can be more immediately effective than the press or the motion picture. Propagandas of the air travel with speed of light. Millions of listeners can hear and respond instantly.
By selection and emphasis, by suppression and distortion, the totalitarian regime uses radio [MSM] to inculcate the political, social, and cultural attitudes and beliefs it considers necessary or desirable.”
Plans it?
They’ve been banging on about it in every program possible.
The presenters on The One Show, were banging on about it, with Chris Packham; you can’t watch Countryfile without hearing about Climate Change.
Anything Attenborough’s involved with you get a big chunk about climate change.
To baffle my tinnitus I have World Service on all night – which means I have CC baloney on all night
Put Radio3 on instead. Much more soothing.
Get a constant player of the sea, a rushing river, a waterfall….
The BBC coverage this morning is illustrative. The nauseous Breakfast programme featured multiple patronising articles from Glasgow with the promise that coverage of climate change issues would take centre stage in their programming (as Attenborough’s latest speech has) until the COP in November. The highest level of debate offered was to report from a primary school and interview brain-washed little children, asking them if they were worried about climate change and similar.
This section was pretty much tantamount to child abuse in my opinion but, as a middle class, middle aged white male my points of view are hardly welcome at the BBC.
The BBC realises that with the current Conservative Commons majority in place their attempts to set the UK political agenda are no longer relevant. They need a new bandwagon and here it is; oven ready, I think is the in vogue phrase, with the bigotfest in Glasgow as the cherry on the top. It will be wall to wall David Utterbollocks and Harrabin for the rest of the year. I hope they have, once again, seriously misjudged the receptibility of their message as far as the British public are concerned.
Meanwhile it is up to a few blogs and the deniers, haters and literally Hitlers who visit and comment to try to counter some of the effects. Any ideas? Anyone?
I think the answer is humour. just laugh at the nitwits. They hate not being taken seriously. So in that spirit i offer you a link to a cheering song by the famous folk group ‘Minnesotans 4 global Warming’. Titled – ‘If we had some Global Warming!’ https://youtu.be/qJUFTm6cJXM It’ll make you smile.
North America is on its 3rd consecutive cold winter. The locals are starting to get annoyed at the NOAA telling them “it’s above average” when they know damned fine that it’s not. If the cold winters keep coming eventually the Dems will have to drop ‘global warming’ to avoid pissing off their base. Then what?
Thanks, bobn, loving the flamingo!
This is a too much, is it not possible for someone to take the dreadful bbc to court?
I watched a video last night about wind turbine failures . It was kind of scary. When these giants come down they come down hard.If you think about the turbine as being all mechanical with a generator and brakes then it is just a matter of time before something wears out or mailfuntion. And the blades are coming a part from dirt particles and salt.In twenty years they will be all scrap and they are building them in the Oceans. How are they going to clean that mess up
I don’t know how they’re going to clean the mess up all those failed, clapped out marine whirlygigs – perhaps greenpiss or richard betts might have an idea.
what I do know, is whom will pay for the clean up…………………………
The BP statistic is questionable. “ The UK has been at the forefront of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, having cut them by 30% since 2008. (Based on BP data up to 2018)”
This ignores imports consumed in the uk, uk airplane emissions and companies incorporated in the UK? If these are included the UK is still one of the highest emitters of co2 per capita?
I rely on this feed for reliable solid climate scepticism. This article is using biased research, that was funded by financially vested interests. For a more accurate independent analysis (and the uk is doing ok) see: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-fell-for-record-sixth-consecutive-year-in-2018
Not sure what you mean about ‘companies incorporated in uk’?
listen to last weeks “more or less” on BBC R4 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d22phttps://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d22p
that provides a view on how UK emissions have fallen – and from 2008 not due to outsourcing ..
Raphael
Quoting Carbon Brief as a reliable source on the wickedness and amount of CO2 molecules is much like relying on Volkisch Beoebacher for the wickedness and amount of Jews in the German population.
Carbon Brief is an immoral propaganda outfit, first and last.
Until there is a major embrace of nuclear power by the news folks (BBC in the UK) we can be certain they haven’t a clue about “green” energy. Interestingly, there is news about the solar/salt facility in the Nevada desert. It is called Crescent Dunes. The Wall Street Journal ($) has an editorial in the Jan. 16th editions, namely “The Best-Laid Energy Plans –The feds bet $737 million on a salt tower for solar power. You’ll never guess the result.”
Further, it appears that more and more informed people are not buying the climate crisis – extinction thing. Meanwhile, the activists appear more and more deranged. Perhaps there is a connection.
Keep up the good work, Paul.
EXTINCTIONS – the origin of the scare:
Paul Ehrlich, in 1981, predicted that by the year 2000 half of the earth’s species would be extinct and all would be gone by 2015 – well, it is now 2020 and we are all still here. Why anyone should go on listening to such a person after that remains baffling, but they do.
The trouble is that these figures were simply plucked out of the air. Norman Myers, author of The Sinking Ark (1979), started this particular scare. His argument was bizarre. He asserted that until 1900 one species went extinct every four years. Then, quoting a 1974 conference in which a ‘guess was hazarded’ that extinction rates had reached 100 a year, he arbitrarily decided that this figure was still too low. He suggested that 100 species a day would be a better figure or about 40,000 a year or 1 million in 25 years. And that is the whole basis for the scare. It starts with an estimate and then this is multiplied by 160,000 and we are told we face disaster. It makes for good headlines, of course, and lots of funds for environmental organisations.
The reality is very different. It is true that species do go extinct and that man can be the cause of some of these extinctions, but there is no evidence that any extinctions have been caused by ‘climate change’ in the last four centuries. No-one has the slightest idea how many species exist on the earth anyway. Estimates vary from 3 million to 80 million. If we take the lowest estimate, then over 80% of the species are insects; if the higher estimate, then over 98% would be insects. Deciding if a species smaller than a human fingernail has become extinct presents almost insuperable difficulties—how can we possibly search every square inch of the globe to check if a particular small insect does not exist any more? We would notice if whales or polar bears disappeared (there is no danger of that by the way), but not if a tiny insect or an amoeba had disappeared.
Whilst I am not an expert on Species Extinction (try Matt Ridley), I think the only species that owes its extinction to mankind in the last hundred years is Smallpox virus.
Of course, our chums in Gang Green are outraged by this sad loss.
I have long thought that salt cooled nuclear is the right way to go. There are still some intractable technical problems, but if it got a fraction of the money spent on the Holy Grail of nuclear fusion it would be a working technology by now. Nuclear fusion was 10 years away in my youth, and is now 30 years away, but it still gets all the money.
For a different (and easier to implement) approach to molten salt have a look at Moltex Energy, a UK company currently going through licensing formalities in Canada.
Thank you Peter Barrett, I will.
Attenborough has long been an advocate of population reduction. Perhaps this is how he thinks it will happen.
He may be an advocate of population reduction (his patronage of “Population Matters”, for example), but I wonder how many ordinary viewers know about this?
Some years ago now I heard Attenborough say overpopulation was the cause of environmental destruction, with which I agree, and when he became a patron of Population Matters I thought he’d speak out about it but AFAIK he has never mentioned it again probably warned off to protect his reputation.
As Attenborough is keen on population reduction, maybe he should become a supporter of anti-vaccination since we are being told that if people aren’t vaccinated, they are more likely to die. Trouble is that those like me who lived through all those childhood diseases are often more healthy than later generations who have been persuaded to be vaccinated. There is no question that autism rates are soaring (estimated to be 1 in 65 now in America) and what is causing evermore cases of allergies? Morbidity rates have plummeted as a result of improvements in water quality, sanitation and nutrition.
Sorry you are wrong, Measles is not just a killer but also a crippler, leaving children with issues for the rest of their lives. So is Polio.
Try Chemicals as the causes of allergies, maybe even Flouride.
Millions of children with allergies, autism and other minor health defects would have died in infancy before modern medicine and hygiene. Now these kids can grow and lead good lives but still have to nurse their allergies that once would have killed them in childhood. mystery solved. The same explains cancer rates – we used to die of disease, heart failure etc before cancer got a chance to get going.
Way back climate change wiped out civilisations. Today the world’s population is increasing a million a week, the fastest in the far hotter 3rd world countries. Alarmists are incapable of joined up thinking.
Watched the rubbish on BBC this morning going on about towns and cities hitting net zero in 2030 etc. What no one ever asks is what affect it will have on global temperatures and at what cost. I know Tol did something on the Paris agreement but if us sceptics could say something along the lines of ‘So Mr Attenborough, you think we should spend £x trillion to prevent 0.0x degrees of warming’ it would be a powerful weapon.
Does this sort of analysis exist anywhere?
“Does this sort of analysis exist anywhere?”
Maybe not exactly as you want it, but Paul, Jo Nova, WUWT, and others have such things (accuracy hard to gauge) quite frequently.
If the issue is spending £x trillion to reduce CO2 will have 0.0x degrees effect, then one also has to accept that the gas does have an effect. Some don’t. What is you opinion?
There is natural warming and cooling and climate change.
Is the current warming or cooling dangerous?
What we can be sure of is that the BBC and Attenborough don’t know.
Oliver
You will remember that the entirely unlamented theresa May pledged1 trillion to fight climate change. Nature magazine calculated that it would cool the earth by 3hundredths of a degree.
the royal society also noted that nothing we do will have any impact on temperatures for several thousand years
Tonyb
PBS TV in Southern California the BBC news is shown every evening ……. As a British ex-pat I record it just in case there is anything worth looking at. Last night the BBC out did themself in showing the most ” Outrageous ” litany of Global Warming Rubbish ……. The trouble is a lot of Californians will lap this up as the truth ……. Disgraceful !!!
It would be great if we could follow the much-hyped climate strikes with a licence fee strike, but it would probably need a few big names behind it which would doubtless be hard to organise.
SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THE BBC.
There is a difference between information dissemination and propaganda. I’ve been saying this for years now, and no one takes a blind bit of notice !!!
“What we sow, – We reap”.
“SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THE BBC”
You’re damn right it does! Closing it down ASAP would be the best answer, and might save me from having a heart attack. Two nights running, I’ve turned on the News at Ten to be confronted by utter bullshit spewing forth – especially David Shuckman’s main story diatribe last night – and promptly swore profusely at the screen. I usually keep the sound muted and call up the Red Button text service, so I can skip anything looking like the Beeb’s usual propaganda. But they’re closing that facility at the end of the month, and since Sky (UK) is little better I might have to watch RT a bit more…
RT at least covers the world outside of Brexit, the royals and climate disaster. Viewed carefully it is first class news programme (apart from thedire ads).
Apologies for a second comment, but Ian Magness (above) in his last paragraph has raised a very important subject.
I recall as a child my father removed all but one screw from all the kitchen door hinges. He told me it was so we could all get under the kitchen table and put the door up against it to shelter “when the bomb dropped”. Some older readers might recall the government household pamphlet showing this and other useless advice for surviving nuclear attack. This one publication about a remote possibility which nobody considered in their day to day life had a profound effect on me and I recall staying awake wondering what the world would be like, would our cat survive? All the things which are relevant in the mind of a scared seven year old.
Now our children have the concept of catastrophic climate change thrust into their minds by their schools, the media (especially the BBC) and peer pressure. The extent of the psychological damage to a whole generation is unknown and probably immeasurable, there are even psychiatrists trained specifically in the subject. But at least we know who is to blame, let’s hope they are still around when the truth is known.
Watch the new Dr. Who (played by Jodie Whittaker) episode 3 : ‘Orphan 55’.
Beside the cringeworthy escaping from mutant beings, flashbacks are shown on what planet they appear to have landed. It was Earth, a long time after it had been destroyed by anthropological global warming due to carbon dioxide.
I ended up watching it after the family over-ruled me, and as I was sitting in the chair nearest the fire, I wasn’t about to vacate the room. Utter drivel from start to finish.
I have a similar recall as you having lived through the the Cuban Missile Crisis! The advice was “put you hands over your head, put you head between your knees and kiss your arse goodbye because your f***ed”. We survived friend and are here to ridicule these fools. Have you had children? Their attention span is minutes before they seek something new. It is a battle to keep them concentrated for an hour. That is why the attempt at indoctrination will fail. Their boredom threshold is milliseconds. Repeated messaging turns them off faster than boiled cabbage. It as great news that the BBC has started it now. I look forward to their ratings by easter!
I remember the Cuban missile crisis because it erupted as I was spending the weekend at home during the college term. I was more concerned about finishing the weekend chemistry problem than the so called crisis. I thought that Kennedy and Kruschev were both rational politicians, they would sort it out in a compromise that was face saving for both sides (missiles removed from both Cuba and Turkey) and of course they did.
People who did not experience the so called Cold War themselves seem to think that people were obsessed with annihilation. Well my generation of youngsters and teenagers were certainly not. I remember my main concerns were : exams, how can i get more pocket money, why am I the only boy in class without a girl friend and why am I rubbish at cricket and sport ( the latter 2 probably connected).
But then of course the BBC was run by educated adults and not pathetic mental juveniles.
“ Is Attenborough really prepared to (see?) the world’s population sacrificed on the altar of his eco-extremism?”
Since by all accounts Attenborough is a neo-Malthusian the “right” answer would appear to be ‘yes’’. Maybe he’s not that extreme but in that case the logic of his arguments is against him.
Is this all a last hurrah because auntie is about to lose its secret EU funding I wonder?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/the-millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide/
From what I have heard already this week on the Today programme and the World At One this is a brainwashing / propaganda onslaught that would make Joseph Goebbels extremely jealous.
David Attenborough’s interview with the BBC indicates that he no longer knows what he’s talking about.
The ‘climate emergency’ is a western obsession: the countries where scientists, the media and leading politicians are concerned about it are essentially all in Western Europe, North America and Australasia. Although that doesn’t mean it’s an unfounded concern, it explains why, despite the west’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions declining from 11 billion tonnes p.a. in 2000 to less than 10 billion today, global emissions have increased over the same period from 26 billion p.a. to 38 billion. Most of the world doesn’t care.
Yet Attenborough, Greta, the BBC etc. think it necessary to castigate us – people in the west – for not doing enough. OK, Attenborough does say that, if the Chinese were to change their policy, ‘That would be the big change that one could hope would happen’. But it’s all very well to ‘hope’ – does he have any ideas, any at all, about how it might be achieved? I very much doubt it. Yet he accuses us of ‘putting things off for year after year’. Doesn’t he know that US and EU negotiators have worked extraordinarily hard at various UN climate conferences over the years, and especially at Copenhagen in 2009, to persuade China and other major developing countries to accept a share of responsibility for GHG reduction, only to be met with adamant refusal? To describe that – and other major western initiatives – as ‘playing games’ or ‘having nice little debates‘, is wholly absurd. What does he expect the west to do – declare war?
Attenbore: “We know perfectly well,” he said, that human activity is behind the heating of the planet.
Somebody should tell him that science doesn’t work like that. Assertions and assumptions of likelihood don’t count for anything. Unless he can tell us what natural climate variation was doing in the last 200 years or so, he’s just armwaving.
Maybe the Chinese Government don’t see the climatic disasters he does!
I think this is what you really mean, Paul. The average man/woman on the streets of Beijing, or the wilds of Mongolia, has absolutely no say in the matter…
Fortunately, there are far better, more informative and non-partisan sources of information other than the BBC – this blog being one example.
have just complained about todays rerpeat of Thatcher being a comlete ‘believer’ even tho she changed her mind in 2003
Well done, Sid.
Thatcher might have believed the science but I would be very surprised if she thought centrally-planned undemocratic and massive changes to our economy were the solution.
We must challenge this deliberate conflation of science and politics.
The major unacceptable problem with the BBC as our major national broadcaster is the absence of balance in its presentation of news and views airtime it gives to the expression of views . This has been particularly obvious in relation to Brexit since the Referendum and for even longer in relation to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) masquerading under the now all pervasive pseudonym ‘Climate Change’. ( No one should be allowed to utter the words ‘Climate Change ‘ without saying whether they mean AGW or not).
The Courts are required to achieve balance in order to arrive at the truth by listening to the other side of the argument. A public broadcaster should be required to achieve balance by presenting and giving air time to proponents of alternative sides of the argument. The BBC by failing to do this consistently in relation to these and other major issues becomes a mere propagandist.
When will the nettle of forcing the BBC to cease propagandising be grasped by those who regulate the BBC and them failing by HMG?
Alan Ground
My book list “Books that tell a different story” will shortly be updated to Rev. 12. Amongst other publications, you will find two books that are relevant to this topic as follows: “The Noble Liar”, Robin Aitken, Biteback Publishing Ltd 2018. ISBN 978-1-78590-349-6 and “BBC: Brainwashing Britain?” David Sedgwick, Sandgrounder Publishing 2018. ISBN-978-1-9993591-0-2. David Sedgwick is a nom de plume. I understand the guy is a university prof. and so does not want top lose his job!
I have noticed that BBC News broadcasts for the last 3 days have all had relentless coverage about climate. It is such an important news topic that other news channels appear to have missed it (sarc). I was amused about the coverage today of floods in Australia and video of a guy rescuing cuddly but bedraggled koalas from the rising waters. Barefaced propaganda.
May I humbly suggest that everyone here sends a complaint to the BBC that there is no balance being applied in respect of Climate Change programming, pointing out perhaps that there are many well qualified individuals who should be given the opportunity to debate the matter with the proponents of ACC.
Can any scientist help me? I have been told that UV light from space travels thru the atmosphere without hindrance – then it hits the ground and is reflected back as infra red
radiation which is then trapped in the CO2. Is this right?
If so it all cannot be trapped as any level of CO2 would do so – what are the percentages of a ‘packet’ of infra red radiation travelling thru various concentrations of CO2?
No doubt there is a link explaining this? Thanks for any help.
Most of the Solar UV light is stopped by the Ozone layer, hence the Ozone scare.
What UV does get to the surface warms it and in the case of the Oceans (70% of the surface) it goes deep, warming metres of water.
The heat from the warm surface leaves the earth as Long Wave Infra Red.
Most of it is absorbed by Water in the Atmosphere as there is much more Water than Co2 and it covers more of the Radiation band.
The CO2 molecules do absorb the LWIR Photons, but immediately either lose it by collisons or emit it as a photon.
The CAGW hypothesis and that is all it is, is based on positive feedbacks.
It is a subject that divides many Scientists & Engineers.
Earth is mostly heated by energy from our own Sun, via the visible light that peaks as yellow.
Search for graph. Note that this penetrates water (much of Earth’s surface) as can be viewed via colorful fishes, plants, and corals in oceans. Land, light colored and snow, reflects much of this shortwave radiation, as does water when the angle is low.
The water, land, and atmosphere radiate longwave radiation (infrared; IR). It is this IR that is of concern regarding the role of CO2.
“ UV light from space ” You did not write ‘Sun’.
Seems this is not much importance to Earth’s surface or lower atmosphere.
It is getting ridiculous – almost non-stop. Lunchtime today on Radio 4, Alice Bell was talking about Thatcher’s comments on climate back in the 80s, part of a series called “Green Originals”.
I have sent in a complaint as they must know she recanted in 2003
All we hear is the” CC is man made” and “oh no it’s not” or “it’s not happening at all”
What we seem to be short of is extensive evidence and investigation of what an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere actually does, apart from vegetation growing more. Where is the recent evidence and investigation in to the greenhouse effect of CO2? Surely this is the crux of the matter.
Take a look at this
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOgX_odUUAEAdGH.png:large
A good coverage of the science is given in this Question and Answer session with Professor of Physics William Happer (a world expert on CO2). https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/
Don’t ask awkward questions – the science is settled, remember? Tut tut 🤫
Laurence Fox (actor) would seem to be not convinced. A report in the Express . co . uk has a report of him on a BBC programme called Question Time. He has antagonized the ‘woke” and doesn’t care. He was previously seen on ‘So what you’re saying is” on Youtube. also being ‘unwoke”
I think the BBC will have him on a blacklist by now ! I don’t watch the BBC because I’m in New Zealand but their ideas are the only ones which filter through on all television shows so I don’t watch TV much.
If you haven’t already seen it it’s worth a watch for three minutes. The woman next to him who seems to go into paroxismal paralysis at some of his answers is Baroness Chakrabarti, barrister, human rights activist and general sjw responsible for the internal Labour Party whitewash on anti-semitism.
Say what? So you agree that CO² needs to be reduced? You agree that we spend billions on such a pointless exercise? I’m pretty sure you don’t but – sorry to say this – it sounds like you’ve been taken in by the propaganda.
No. I’m simply replying to Attenbro’s claims that we have been “putting things off”
I figured that, Paul. My irony meter needs recalibration.
I am going to ask my MP why I should pay a tax to fund a Media Company, when that media company expresses opinions of its own and actively promotes the views of extreme climate change alarmists.
I suggest you do the same.
It will be pretty pointless as Parliament voted to declare a “climate emergency”.
As most here know, Parliament declared an ’emergency’ because, in time – of their choosing, when the populace has forgotten it happening – they will be able to enact draconian policies without referring too much to the democratic process. After all, they’ll say, ‘it’s an emergency!’.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the BBC is now THE mouthpiece for the green movement. There is no balance because that’s what they do now and they do it at the taxpayers expense. We need an organised movement to push for the total abolition of the license fee and to ensure that no taxpayer has to fund the BBC in any way. The BBC is now becoming a very dangerous climate change alarmist and teller of lies on a national basis. Any campaign must therefore push for the decriminalisation for non payment of the license fee and abolition of the tax as soon as possible. This is the only way to pull the teeth of these extremists.
The BBC takes no notice of complaints, even from GWPF. Goodness knows I’ve tried. Why is OFCOM doing nothing? It’s their job so perhaps the complaints should go to them. Attenborough is described in a link above as “the renowned naturalist and broadcaster”. Remember that other renowned naturalist and broadcaster, David Bellamy, who dared to disagree with their policy and, like Johnny Ball and others, was never allowed on air again.
OFCOM is part of the problem!
A brief flick through the bios of the OFCOM board and executive reveals that many are ex MSM, surprise, surprise BBC especially. I must get hold of a wedge to jam that revolving door.
I am fast running out of reasons to watch or listen to this overlarge, selfserving, unbalanced hypocritical broadcaster. The problem is that half the country accept everything it broadcasts as gospel truth and blasphemic to criticise or deny.
As another of the night time BBC World Service and Radio 4 Today programme audience I too have wondered if the BBC has abandoned the distinction between news reporting and their repeating of press releases from the armageddon school of climate science.
Notice too how some charities have ridden into the political arena after changing their original purpose viz the World Wildlife Fund has decided that a change to WWF now confers a licence to scold us on matters which go way beyond those of wildlife.
Today on Radio 4’s Today Programme it was the turn of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England — the CPRE — to call itself the Charity for Rural England or was it the Countryside . Its difficult to know if such changes are to widen the net for charitable donations, or to justify a wider agenda and increased establishment numbers or just hubris. .
As before the political aims of these pressure groups purporting to be anxious about the environment and the Government’s responsibilities should concern the Charity Commissioners.
Christopher Booker wrote many articles years ago on the fraudulent nature of the WWF. It never has been about wildlife.
We have been here before and not that long ago, the BBC planned a series of programmes just like this. my prediction is if the BBC do this then they commit suicide.
Then we had “Live Earth” which achieved absolutely nothing apart from a lot of questions of “where did the money go?”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Earth_(2007_concert)
Complain, complain, complain. And always tick the ‘I want a reply’ box.
There is an interesting piece on the WUWT site that says that Donald Trump, if re-elected for a second term as president, intends to set up a debate run on court rules on climate change. This means that both sides will have the chance to present evidence and, crucially, witnesses will be subjected to cross-examination. One has to ask why this cannot be done in this country? Is it that the BBC and the Attenboroughs are too fearful to have their assertions closely examined in a public forum?
This time they might just be stupid enough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Relief
To lighten the mood here’s a bonus song. ‘Imagine there’s no Global Warming’
I will say it again – the BBC is pretending this is science when it is politics.
They have their rule about excluding Ckimate Sceorics, but that covers the SCUENCE nit the POLITICS.
We should challenge the BBC on this – not on accepting the science, as that ship has sailed, but on what we do with the science, because that is politics.
The quote from the BBC – “we know what to do” – perfectly illustrates this. What we do us a political decision, not a scientific one.
The BBC has repeated it’s request for opinions which it did a couple of days ago at the bottom of the David Attenborough link above. It’s only about Scotland this time, at the bottom of this page https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51088089 . Very frustrating as so few characters allowed. We’re leading the way apparently – don’t we just know it.
I suggest the BBC should have a dedicated climate change channel, carrying nothing but climate programming. The quid pro quo is that none of the other channels would be allowed to mention climate change at all in any of their programming, directly or indirectly. Then when their dedicated channel proves as popular as BBC Alba, they may get the message.
Attenborough and co are paid globalist shills from privelidged backgrounds. Tell you what Dave, you sell your mansion and give the money to climate change activists then move in opposite me in a three bedroom semi then I will get on board….until then FUCK OFF!