|
|
By Jo Nova
There are so many holes in the Holy Carbonista Bible it’s easy to find one to surprise a BBC interviewer with.
Now that Guyana has discovered the joys of major oil deposits, the President came prepared. But because the BBC is so robotically predictable, Irfaan Ali knew exactly what they would ask, but host Stephen Sackur, seemingly had no idea what was coming. If only the BBC had interviewed a few skeptics in the last thirty years…
There are few things I enjoy quite as much as watching indoctrinated Western virtue signallers get epically destroyed by people from developing countries who are willing to be honest. pic.twitter.com/MkC2EIyQZR
— Konstantin Kisin (@KonstantinKisin) March 29, 2024
…
“Let me stop you right there,” he said. “Did you know that Guyana has a forest that is the size of England and Scotland combined, a forest that stores 19.5 gigatons of carbon, a forest that we have kept alive?”
“I’m going to lecture you on climate change. Because we have kept this forest alive that you enjoy that the world enjoys, that you don’t pay us for, that you don’t value.
March 31st, 2024 | Tags: BBC, Media bias, South America | Category: Global Warming, Media-matters |  Print This Post | |
BBC
By Jo Nova
Now they tell us
Wind farms save the world, and absolutely do not hurt dolphins or whales but did you know the industry has developed bubble curtains to protect porpoises hearing from the things that never harm them (isn’t that nice of them)? Bubble curtains are being “widely” used in Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands.
The BBC is happy to report it now there are good results from a study, but apparently they weren’t too enthused in 2013 about telling us how pile -driving during construction can permanently destroy hearing in marine mammals. Indeed, ocean noise is such a problem the pile-driving teams use acoustic deterrents — loud noises designed to scare marine life away before they get started on the industrial noise. But even the “safety warning” may itself be dangerous.
So that’s alright then, windfarm construction used to kill porpoises, and the BBC kept that a secret, but now that we’ve solved it, it’s news we can use, right?
“Like a giant jacuzzi.”
How bubble curtains protect porpoises from wind farm noise As huge offshore wind farms spread across Europe’s North and Baltic seas, efforts grow to buffer the impact on wildlife. […]
By Jo Nova
Just view the BBC as the promotional wing of the Crony-Corporate Deep-State Cartel and it all makes sense
Andrew Montford lays bare the hypocrisy: The BBC won’t call Hamas “terrorists”, even though they kill babies and are legally classified as terrorists. Apparently it’s not accurate and impartial enough for them, and they say it’s a “barrier to understanding”. But the same BBC calls scientists and engineers climate deniers as if it’s the golden path to knowledge.
The BBC are expert namecallers, they know the power of labels and brands, and that’s exactly why they do it. Calling people “deniers” is a barrier to understanding. It stops the public from listening to the scientists the BBC don’t like. The BBC have essentially admitted it in their own words. They won’t use emotive terms like “terrorists” on Hamas because they want the public to hear every excuse those-who-murder-babies say, but they will use emotive, meaningless terms like Denier when it suits them.
The BBC don’t want the public to understand skeptical scientists. That is the point.
Their hypocrisy is deliberate
The science debate can’t even start until the namecalling ends:
…
Andrew Montford: The […]
By Jo Nova
It’s just another climate denier with a Nobel Prize in Physics…
John Clauser, Nobel Prize winner.
Dr John F Clauser of quantum entanglement fame, leaves no doubt about his thoughts:
“…climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”.
Despite that, the ABC and BBC types won’t pick up the phone to ask Dr John F Clauser why a man with his remarkable reputation would risk looking like an idiot, and speaking up as a climate skeptic. It’s not that they are afraid he might bore the audience or sound like a kook. They won’t ask him because they’re afraid he’ll have a good answer.
How much damage would it do to the cause if the audience finds out that one of the highest ranking scientists in the world disagrees with the mantra? It would break that sacred spell. Suddenly, the unwashed masses will realize “there is a debate”, and that all the times they were told “the debate was over”, they were being lied too.
The same team that tells us that we must “listen to the experts”, won’t listen to any experts they don’t like. They rave about “UN Experts” that […]
GB News has only been running for 10 weeks in the UK but it has already been targeted by a campaign to boycott the advertisers.
However the boycott was twice as likely to get people to tune in.
This is how it works. Once the Virtue Signallers have overdone the bullying and the crowd knows it — the bullying itself works like a signpost.. By definition, the forbidden material will always be the most interesting. The politically incorrect shows are the most entertaining.
GB News joy as campaign to boycott advertisers has actually BOOSTED channel
Express.co.uk
While those wishing to boycott GB News may take brands removing their adverts as a win – a recent survey found it may have actually given the channel a boost.
A poll of 1,000 people conducted by CT Group, commissioned by GB News, gave the statement “consumer goods brands should not adopt overt political views”.
Of those polled, 57 percent agreed that brands shouldn’t take on “overt political beliefs”. And only 15 percent disagreed with the statement. When those surveyed were asked if an advertiser boycott made people more likely to tune into the […]
Signs of life in the UK outpost of Civilization
A new TV channel called “GB News” only opened on Sunday, to smashingly good ratings. GB News outdid the BBC and Sky on its first day as 164,000 people tuned in to see if they got real news for a change instead of repetitive inane cliches approved by some middle level bureaucratic arts graduate who was pushing their own political agenda to pump up their grifting salary and impress their friends. The BBC got 133,000 viewers and Sky 57,000.
BBC hit by mass boycott as viewers flock to Andrew Neil’s GB News and cancel TV licences
by Laura O’Callaghan, Express
AVID fans of GB News have hailed Britain’s newest TV channel and vowed to continue their boycott of the Beeb as they seek information from alternative sources.
Naturally, the collectivist bullies have gone after the advertisers, and while many spineless corporate CEOs have folded to cancel culture, at least one team is fighting back. Companies with weak CEOs include Kopparberg, Grolsch, Nivea, Open University, and Ikea.
Bravo to The Co-op which stood their ground
The Co-op announced that it would not remove its advertising.
Smashing plan — raising funds to call for a judicial review of BBC bias
David Keighley has a great strategy — instead of debating “the facts” with an organisation that accepts whatever an unaudited foreign committee says — he’s going for the jugular — how do they measure and define impartiality? They aimed initially to reach £30,000 to cover our legal fees but have already achieved that in mere days, such is the anger out there, Australians are even donating. (We get fed the BBC too!) So they’ve just extended the aim to raise £60,000. This is important because we know the BBC has deep pockets — remember in 2006 how they held an in house seminar with high level “climate experts” that turned out to be mostly a workshop with Greenpeace, industry activists and lobbyists. They then spent years and tens of thousands of your taxpayer pounds to hide the identities of the 28 experts.
The BBC will fight this judicial review to the end, unless of course, they actually think they are unbiased. What are the odds?
From the FAQ for the StopBBCBias campaign group:
Dear Auntie: You cannot call yourself impartial if you are measuring yourself
Paid by the people to give them the facts, Clive Lewis is proud that he deceived them and delivered a message that served his own interests rather than theirs. From a Jan 2018 story by Amanda Cashmore For Mailonline:
“Clive Lewis admits broadcasting biased news“:
In 2017 Lewis admitted to biased reporting whilst working for the BBC. At a Momentum rally he stated: “I was able to use bias in my reports by giving less time to one than the other. I reported on both but the angle and words and the language I used — I know the pictures I used — I was able to project my own particular political positions on things in a very subtle way.“
This is clearly in breach of the spirit, ethics and whole point of the BBC. Did he think the people of the UK needed his wise but hidden counseling because he’s been born so much smarter than everyone else.
Naturally, we know where people struggling with reality end up in the climate debate. This is Clive Lewis, Jan 1 2019:
Politicians must persuade consumers to make dramatic lifestyle changes if devastating climate change and […]
There is no new science here but it could be the most simpering advertising I have seen dressed up as “reporting”. IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report
by Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent, BBC
It is likely to be the most critical and controversial report on climate change in recent years.
Scientists are meeting this week, right now, to try to save the world or to produce a PR and marketing excuse, whichever comes first. After 20 meetings just like this one even slow journalists like Matt McGrath at the BBC know exactly what the scientists will say before they have said it.
When is news not news:
After a week of deliberations in the city of Incheon, the researchers’ new report is likely to say that keeping below this limit will require urgent and dramatic action from governments and individuals alike.
When is news totally fake news:
These researchers, who are unpaid, have reviewed the available scientific literature on the feasibility, impacts and costs of staying under 1.5C.
This is true Pravda quality press. Does any one of these 86 researchers, getting a paid trip to South Korea to write a […]
If the IPCC are wrong, the BBC will be the last place to say so
Lets all bow to the IPCC — a modern God that shalt not be questioned. The Holy Sacred Climate Cow!
The IPCC is an unaudited and unaccountable foreign committee. Not only are no scientists paid to check its findings, now the publicly mandated BBC is making sure none of their journalists will check its findings either.
Carbonbrief has a copy of the BBC new internal guidance on how to report climate change.
In April, the UK regulator, Ofcom, found the BBC was guilty of not sufficiently challenging Lord Lawson, a skeptic. So in response the BBC now promises they will never sufficiently challenge the IPCC. That’s “false balance” for you.
The BBC issues a guidance to journalists
What’s the BBC’s position?
Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position, set out above. If only BBC baby-scientist-rulers knew what “proves” means in science. The IPCC can never be “proven” right, though it has been proven wrong, and many times. Be aware of ‘false balance’: As […]
Al Gore creates more skeptics everyday
Ross Clark, journalist, met Al Gore to interview him about his favourite topic. But Ross broke the rules; he did some research. Clark even talked to a professor about the scenes of Florida being flooded. The prof explained that it’s not so much that the seas were rising fast, but that the land under Miami is sinking — and by an amazing 16-24cm in the last 80 years. (No wonder some residents are seeing water inundate new areas.)
When I put all this to Al Gore and ask him whether his film would be stronger if it acknowledged the complexities of sea level rise — why it is rising in some places and not in others — I am expecting him to bat it away, saying that it doesn’t counter his central point and that there is a limit to what you can put into a film pitched at a mass audience, but his reaction surprises me. As soon as I mention Professor Wdowinski’s name, he counters: ‘Never heard of him — is he a denier?’ Then, as I continue to make the point, he starts to answer before directing it at […]
For a moment I thought the BBC was tackling a very important question:
Wind farms’ climate impact recorded for first time
Most taxpayers want to know whether wind farms have an impact on our global climate. But the BBC are looking at whether wind farms cause warming on the square kilometer below them. A question hot on the lips of almost no people.
In the first study of its kind, scientists have been able to measure the climatic effect of a wind farm on the local environment.
The team said its experiment showed that there was a very slight warming at ground level and that it was localised to within a wind farm’s perimeter.
Data suggested the operation of onshore wind farms did not have an adverse ecological effect, the group added.
That will presumably reassure all three residents living under wind-farms who were worried about their house overheating, or the clothes not drying on the line.
It may not reassure the 99.9% of the UK people who pay for the BBC and hope to see it report something useful. Voters might have preferred to see a cost benefit analysis on the billion-dollar industry: […]
…
Here on the ball of magma called Earth, there’s a hot plume of rocks under Iceland that stretches right across under Greenland. Those hot rocks are melting the ice from below in a band 1,200 km long and 400 km wide.[1]
I don’t think solar panels are going to stop Greenland melting.
The main part of the plume has been progressing eastward over the last 120 million years, right under Greenland and now lies under Iceland.
Will the media take a million years to catch on?
Presumably, being world class journalists, from now on all ABC/BBC/CBC stories will not mention melting Greenland ice-sheets without also noting that geothermal heat may be causing it instead of your long hot showers.
But a similar study published in Nature Geoscience 3 years ago was the forerunner to this one with similar conclusions and the mainstream media don’t seem to have noticed yet.[2] No mention of magma, tectonics and hot rocks here: ABC — Antarctica’s melting ice alone could lift sea levels one metre by 2100, March 31st, 2016. Or here: ABC — Global warming melts last stable edge of Greenland’s Zachariae ice stream, March 17th, 2014. Or on the BBC – […]
If you throw enough of other-peoples-money at something you too can neutralize top talent and produce mediocrity.
Where are the young Cleese’s and Idle’s now?
They [John Cleese and Eric Idle] say the British broadcaster would not be brave enough to take a risk on them these days.
Cleese says the BBC has completely “screwed up comedy” because it has become a bureaucracy and “bureaucrats shouldn’t be in charge of comedy”.
IDLE: “Executives do not on the whole do well with comedy. They can’t understand it, they can’t read it, they can’t spot it.”
CLEESE: “But they think they can because they spend their whole time talking to other executives about what’s working. It’s like a martian trying to understand sex.”
Cleese on political correctness:
“Political correctness is a bit like granny or your maiden aunt arriving at a party when you’re all having a good time,” John Cleese said.
“She comes in and they all start buttoning up and becoming self conscious and behaving properly and then when she leaves you can have fun again.
“Well a lot of humour is just about enjoying life, […]
What to do with the public broadcasters? ABC BBC CBC (Can anyone explain public media in NZ?)
Big-government fans forcibly take funds from all citizens to support big-government propaganda by journalists who predominantly vote left or very-left (see here or here). The question is not whether or not they should do this but whether to privatize the public broadcasters, or to split them in two. I say, let’s forget the submissive plea to get one conservative commentator among a monoculture of “progressives”. Chop the current one in half and call it what it is: pro big-government. Then set up a new counter half to match — the pro-small-government broadcaster with the same funds but new staff. (Game on — let the best team win that ratings war.) Abbott could keep ABC funding promises. ABC-L plus ABC-R equals current ABC-LL+ funding.
Obviously, true free-market libertarians want public broadcasters 100% sold — their incentives are always going to run counter to unbiased reporting and the hunt for the truth. On the other hand, among the populace, the ground is not remotely laid for a big-sell. Many voters remain blind to the bias, and have no idea how filtered the half-truths are: […]
What’s better than Pravda? When Pravda is controlled by big government but masquerades as “commercial” and, even better, when it competes with and sucks money from independent competitors–making it harder for journalists who do ask the government hard questions to be heard at all.
Who needs the ABC? The BBC has arrived to provide the propaganda for free and wants to compete with commercial news outlets. They’ve appointed the most gullible journalists they could find (who’ll believe any official edict). Their new Australian Editor, Wendy Frew, accidentally revealed that while she’s good at rearranging a press release and calling it news, she is not too good with numbers.
In a BBC article yesterday by Wendy Frew titled “Australia has hottest spring on record as temperatures soar” comes the extraordinary news that Australia has warmed by 90C since 1910.
“Australia has been warming up by about 0.9C [a year] since 1910,” Dr Braganza told the BBC.
The online article was fixed this morning (with no mention of the mistake), though copies of the error appear elsewhere. It says something that Frew went out of her way to add “[a year]” into Braganza’s quote without doing the numbers and […]
The evidence for man-made climate change is now so overwhelming and convincing that the BBC has written to a Green politician to apologize for airing alternate views (the dumb punters might get the wrong idea, eh?). The head of the BBC complaints unit told the Green politician it would not happen again.
Well obviously, it doesn’t help the United Kingdom to allow riff raff like the former Chancellor of the Exchequer to present his views — unless he agrees with the doctrine, of course. How could anyone expect listeners who are merely doctors, lawyers, teachers, and businesspeople to be able to understand a debate this complex? (Only certified government approved scientists, and BBC journalists have the mental ability to understand the nuances of an argument which uses large numbers, like 97%). Henceforth, British voters must be shielded from alternate views. Repeat after me: there is a consensus.
The nub of the matter is that the Lord Lawson says he’s banned on the BBC. The BBC, of course, says he’s not. But there is this odd official decision: “The ruling found a false balance was created in that the item implied Lord Lawson’s views on climate science were on the […]
First they take your money to force their opinions over you.
Then they take your money to hide what they were doing, because they knew what they were doing was wrong.
It was a turning point in BBC coverage. The 2006 seminar with “climate experts” turned out to be mostly a workshop with Greenpeace, industry activists and lobbyists. It was the point the BBC dropped even the pretense of impartial news reporting on the climate. After this “high-level” seminar the Beeb announced it didn’t need balance in the climate debate. Then having made out they were so scientific and honorable, they spent the next six years burning more money to hide the names of the experts from the public that paid for them.
Is there any better argument to explain why state funded media is not just a waste of money, but irresponsible, immoral and unethical political advertising?
There is no saving the BBC. Over the last decade climate change was supposedly the “biggest scientific” challenge for the world, and a massive cost to the citizens who were falsely told they needed to change the weather. More than ever, public funds should have been used to analyze both sides of […]
Another cycle of the Climate Change Scare Machine is laid bare. David Rose explains how those lobbying and advising the government on green policies are benefiting from green projects. It’s all in the Daily Mail. The Green Industrial Complex has simply bought everyone off, and, cleverly, done it with your money.
It’s the new business model really. Why work for customers and compete in the free market? Instead scare the public, sell them the “answer”, and to make sure they pay, convince the government that you need grants and gravy (or you’ll call them names). Pretty soon, the government forces the public to pay, disguises and splits the payments into a thousand parts, and tells the people it is for their own good. The fun ramps up when the government hires you back to advise it on how to keep the gravy flowing to you.
What is really mindboggling is that it’s so blatant. Many of these connections “exposed” by Rose are listed on the CCC website, the conflicts are obvious. Why it wasn’t exposed years ago? As I keep saying, the problem is not so much that there are people on the take (there always will be) the real […]
Oh the irony. The BBC, supposedly the public owned broadcaster, had a meeting with 28 climate experts in Jan 2006 where it decided on its policies on climate coverage. It led to the extraordinary move of the BBC abandoning any semblance of impartiality (a principle that’s so important it’s written into its charter). In the meantime, the BBC did everything it could to hide those influential experts names. It’s been nearly seven years since the seminar, but now we know why their names were top secret. No one is even pretending this was about “the science”. The BBC has become a PR wing of Greenpeace.
In mid 2007 Tony Newbery of Harmless Sky started asking who was at the seminar, but the BBC wouldn’t give up the names. In fact the BBC thought the names were so significant that when Newbery sent them an FOI, they not only refused to hand over the list, but they used six lawyers against him (see The Secret 28 Who Made BBC ‘Green’ Will Not Be Named). The BBC, improbably, argued they weren’t “public” and even more improbably, they won the case. Who knew? The BBC could be considered a “private organisation”. Where are […]
|
JoNova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
Recent Comments