Rowlatt Labelled As Campaigner By BBC Colleagues
By Paul Homewood
Too left wing by BBC standards! Crikey!
From The Times:
The BBC’s climate editor has been labelled a “campaigner” by colleagues after he was found in breach of editorial rules for the second time in less than six months.
Justin Rowlatt, the BBC’s first climate editor, was spoken to by executives after he reported misleading claims about extreme weather in a Panorama documentary last November.
An investigation by the BBC executive complaints unit (ECU) found that the programme wrongly stated that weather-related deaths were increasing and that Madagascar was on the brink of the world’s first climate-induced famine.
“The Justin Rowlatt stuff is grim. These are not ‘mistakes’; he’s a campaigner,” one BBC source said. Another person said, despite the ruling against Rowlatt, campaign-like reporting had become more permissible at the BBC amid the climate emergency (sic).
Unfortunately the rest is behind a paywall, but you get the drift.
It is a fact that the BBC Environmental Department has to all intents and purposes gone rogue in recent years. It believes that it is immune from normal BBC editorial standards. It appears that others in the BBC are getting fed up with their self righteousness.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Fed Up?
What Politicians, the BBC and the Media conspicuously fail to mention:
Zero-emission fantasies ignore the essential role of fossil fuels in manufacturing ALL renewables and Electric Vehicles. From mining and processing the myriad metals and minerals for battery modules, wiring, drive trains and bodies, to actually making the components and finished vehicles, every step requires oil, natural gas, or coal.
Usually elsewhere on Planet Earth, most often with Chinese companies in leading roles.
From commonplace iron, copper, aluminium, and petroleum-based plastics – to exotics like lithium, cobalt, and multiple rare earth elements – these materials are dug up and turned into “virtuous” EVs, wind turbines, and solar panels with little or no attention to child labour, fair wages, workplace safety, air, and water pollution, toxic and radioactive wastes, endangered species or mined land reclamation.
Horrific Details here —
One only has to look at pictures of the Mojave Desert Wind Farm, the world’s third largest onshore wind farm, to weep at the sheer insanity that has taken over and forever mourn the loss of that pristine wilderness.
Except that we have lots and lots of pristine wilderness. A million square miles of it. Look at the wind farm and the surrounding land on Google Earth. Find Mojave, CA, and the farm starts two miles west of there. It is quite conspicuous.
One man’s “pristine wilderness” is another man’s barren desert. I’m glad they are getting some use out of that God forsaken land.
The challenge is to name something which is not produced directly from or using fossil energy.
I’m sure that many XR, Just Stop Oil and the rest think that oil is only used to make petrol and diesel and gas for heating and cooking so getting rid of oil and gas is easy.
Rowlatt can’t be that stupid though, can he?
I can remember the series he did 20 years ago on how to be “greener” and I thought then “What an idiot” – the same with Dick Strawbridge who used to do a lot of that junk.
Rowlatt is symptomatic of the BBC’s ‘ normal editorial standards “..When Tommy Robinson’s Panodrama exposed the BBC’s John Sweeney as a vicious classist and racist bigot , revealing the BBC were plotting a character assassination hit job on him , Robinson’s social media accounts were cancelled shortly afterward and he was essentially ‘un-personed’..The ABC here in Australia is just as bad
‘What’s wrong with wind and solar’ is a great summary on the problem with renewables, and is just what I need to show current renewable enthusiasts, (including various relatives and acquaintances).
How do I get it onto a pen drive to send to them in a form that they may actually watch it?
Does it involve copyright?
Solar Panels, the main problem with them is the Heat and the chemicals needed during processing using the ‘Czochralski Method’ turning all that silicate into the silicon used to make these panels. Producing pure Silicon requires the processing of raw silicate. Including the 1,425o C Heat required to melt the quartz crystals, usually by burning coking coal or gas. The Glass covers are made by heating sand, soda ash and limestone to the incredibly high temperature of 1,700o C with gas. Then they are Re-Heated to 450o for tempering. What about the CO2 going up the chimneys where that quartz or that glass was melted? Then, silica, we use hydrochloric acid, Sulfuric Acid, Nitric Acid, Hydrogen Fluoride, Trichloroethane, and Acetone. Do we recycle that waste? What happens to all the ‘left-overs’ from using these highly toxic chemicals? Solar Panels need gallium-arsenide, copper-indium, gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride. All of which are highly toxic even radioactive. Furthermore, Silicon dust is a hazard to workers where silicone is made and where it used. Oh, and last, the Silicone infused Solar Panels cannot, as yet, be recycled. What happens to all the by-products from making and processing all these chemicals? Furthermore, it has been suggested that the energy input to build solar panels exceeds their energy output in their productive lifetime . . .
Wind Turbines, these are The Ultimate in Embedded Costs and Environmental Destruction. Each one weighs about 1,688 tons (equivalent to 23 houses) and they contain 1,300 tons of concrete and 295 tons of steel for the masts (Concrete and Steel = 15% Global CO2). 3.5 tons of copper, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass Then there are the rare earth minerals . . . 800 lbs. of neodymium-boron per turbine, praseodymium, and dysprosium. The leaching into the environment from tailings ponds, the radiation released into the environment and the mining of these minerals are all Embedded Costs. Where are all the calculations for all of these in The Environmental reports? Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last about 15 to 20 years, then, it must be replaced. Oh, we cannot recycle used blades yet either! That is why we see them lying on the ground at wind farms after they have been replaced. What about the coal burned and electricity used at all the production facilities processing these essential components and the CO2 generated during their production? Somehow is this ‘Green Magic’ without pollution, because it will be used to produce Green Energy? Not likely! It all gets brushed under the ‘Big Green Rug’ and seems irrelevant because ‘It’s for a Good Cause’ . . . Absolutely NOT !!
Not to argue with you, Doc, but the main problem with solar is that only works a few hours a day.
The fact is that Lawson was the last person to be allowed free speech about climate Change on the BBC. After that, there has been no debate, no challenge, no criticism, just alarmist propaganda.
My concern is that Ofcom is party to all of that and shows itself to be unfit for purpose.
That the BBC banned Deniers is one thing but they have used the science ban to also ban those who disagree with the political policies of Greens. That is simply wrong and a clear breach of the BBC charter.
From the amount of MSM column inches we’ve generated by exposing Rowlatt’s misinformation and its ECU’s handling of the original complaints, the powers-that-be within BBC should be getting rattled.
I won’t hold my breath that they will though.
Batteries, wind and Solar ALL cost more to the Environment Than they will ever replace during their Productive lifetimes . . .
https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction
https://www.academia.edu/76965285/Clean_Green_Energy_and_Net_Zero_Fairy_Tales_on_Steroids
Justin Rowlatt should apply to Scotland Yard or MI5 ….He has the suitably devious personality and the curriculum vitae
Or maybe Channel 4, as they seem intent on being even more left wing than the BBC.
I’m sorry, Peter.
Lawson might have been “allowed” to very briefly mention Climate Change, (he was being interviewed on energy policy) but a GangGreen swarm was coincidentally waiting in the wings and set off with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, whereupon the BBC humbly apologised for having him on and promised never to do so again.
A promise they have ‘religiously’ kept.
I think LowRatt should be sacked immediately for gross misconduct and whoever appointed him should immediately follow him out the door, preferably both with big boot prints on their arses.
Unfortunately they are much more likely to be knighted.
Not a single one of the Savile lot got the “chop”, and some were even promoted – naming names might be libellous!!
Its not libel if its true.
OT
The link tales you to an article from Prof Super (sic) writing for thehill. Should be thebull. He talks as if model predictions are here with us now and contributing to inflation! God help us that someone so credentled can be such a loser.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3481622-to-fight-inflation-we-must-fight-climate-change/
So the BBC lies about climate change?
Really? Who knew!
I wonder what else they lie about?
Rather ask what they don’t lie about. A much shorter list.
But why is this a story? Shukman and Harrabin have been like this for ever. Remembering Harrabin’s twenty eight gate conspiracy in 2007 and the subsequent BBC’s clearly defined denial of the deniers? Kill the licence fee
They aren’t the only ones. I stopped buying The Times because of their similar attitude but got one yesterday because there was an article on a normal subject that I wanted to read. That was OK but one of their leading articles, on windfall taxes on energy companies, claims that prices are high “because Britain has not invested enough in renewables and long-term storage capacity.” Allied to multiple articles in the past suggesting we should have more onshore windmills, I wonder again if they have a financial interest in that game.
They have evidently not researched what the cost of “enough” renewables and storage would be. Our bills are only heading upwards.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelTakeMP always has a view on these things.
They hit the nail on the head – he’s an activist, not a journalist. But then so many are in the media now. They have become journalists not to report and explain the world, but to change it, and they are explicit about that.
Exactly.
Paywalled Times article here
https://archive.ph/w1xUT
‘It appears that others in the BBC are getting fed up with their self righteousness.’
Perhaps they see that their environmentalist wackos could crash the entire enterprise, taking their jobs with them.
As with another scientifically complex subject that has been raging for 2 decades or more, I see the issue has a 100% failure of elected politicians unable to think critically through these subjects – and they are increasingly heavily compromised by a corrupt, agenda orientated Civil Service who evidently think “we know best” (viz Brexit) ; it is a sweeping statement, but can “you” honestly think of any politician capable by intellect, education and/or life experience in the last say 30 years of making key long term decisions on these subjects – and as always the “PBI” pay the price – I can perhaps think of less than a handful and they were/are all very independently minded; they don’t last long as “ministers” for that very reason. I have also thought for a long time that political parties as configured since WWII are anachronistic and definitely not to “serve the public”. Never thought I would ever say this but not since the 1630/40’s has this country ever been – or more needed – ripe for a military coup….
10-4. I have two friends who are high ranking state officials. Both are smart, good people. But when subjects come up of which they have no knowledge, it’s deer in the headlights time.
Their limited knowledge doesn’t limit their authority. And, unfortunately, they will NOT say, “You know, the state has no expertise in this, we should just stay out of it.” They make a conscientious attempt to understand, but fail, because their focus is wrong.
We get complicated laws on things like “medical” marijuana and open carry of firearms, while many states have NO LAWS AT ALL on them. Marijuana is legal in some states. Open carry is legal in many states. In fact, concealed carry without a permit is legal in half the states. While South Carolina tries to construct the perfect “medical” marijuana law and the perfect carry law.