Nanny McBollocks: Emma Thompson Caught Spouting Climate Tosh on the BBC

Unfortunately, the BBC Trust doesn’t put it quite that bluntly in its latest impartiality review called Making Sense of Statistics.

But it does at least hint at an acknowledgement of something the BBC has never admitted before: that where climate change is concerned, its coverage is so hopelessly biased that any talking heads who come on to speak for the warmist side of the argument can get away with murder.

As the report admits (though without naming names), BBC Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis really should have challenged Emma Thompson when she spouted scientifically illiterate tosh on global warming.

On 2 September 2015 an actress appeared on BBC Two’s Newsnight being interviewed about climate change (which she had campaigned on recently). During the interview she made inaccurate statements about climate threats. This included the claim that if they [oil companies] take out of the earth all the oil they want to take out, you look at the science – our temperature will rise 4 degrees Celsius by 2030, and that’s not sustainable. Scientific research suggests that this temperature rise is in fact likely to be arrived at much later – the World Bank, for example, puts it at “by the end of the century”. However, the statement, and others like it, were not challenged in any way in the programme by the presenter.

Indeed Maitlis should have done. In her defence, though,  global warming is so specialised a topic that it’s nigh-on impossible as a generalist news TV presenter to know whether the impressive-sounding statistics being spouted by your celebrity guest are accurate or totally made up. Indeed, the only person anywhere within the BBC sufficiently well-informed to do so is Andrew Neil.

But the idea – which the report entertains – that this can simply be solved by the BBC’s staffers being more mindful of statistical accuracy in the future is clearly a nonsense.

The rot is much deeper than that. As I’ve reported before here the BBC’s bias on environmental issues is entrenched, institutional and undoubtedly in breach of its charter.

Though the BBC Trust is the watchdog supposed to fix this, its track record hitherto does not inspire much confidence.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Eight More Good Reasons to Loathe and Despise Russell Brand

Russell Brand – soap-dodger, lech, former husband of the infinitely more talented Katy Perry – is the most irritating person on earth. This much we knew. But I don’t think any of us realised just HOW irritating till his most recent appearance on BBC Newsnight last night in which, besides revealing himself to be a 9/11 Truther, he also emerged as a preening, ignorant, manipulative bully with disturbing communist and Islamist tendencies.

If you haven’t watched the segment yet then don’t. Really, don’t. I’ve done it for you and the horror will haunt me for weeks.

1. Russell Brand is a 9/11 truther.

Asked by interviewer Evan Davis about the suggestion in his new book Revolution that the destruction of the Twin Towers looked like “controlled explosion”, Brand became characteristically evasive.

Davis: “Do you think that the Twin Towers were destroyed by agents of the American government?”

Brand: “You can read the book in whatever manner you would like to.”

Pressed by Davis, Brand then went on:

“I think it is interesting at this time when we have so little trust in our political figures, where ordinary people have so little trust in their media, we have to remain open-minded to any kind of possibility.”

2. Brand is an Islamist shill

Davis: “Most people would argue that it is ridiculous to suggest that anyone other than Al Qaeda destroyed that building.”

Brand: “What I do think is very interesting is the relationship that the Bush family have had for a long time with the Bin Laden family. What I do think is very interesting is the way that even the BBC report the events in Ottawa to subtly build an anti-Islamic narrative. I think that’s very interesting.”

3. Brand can’t see a stick without grabbing the wrong end

In a rant on energy, Brand describes a Britain in which “energy companies are subsidised by taxes while renewable energy is ignored.”

Er, Russell, renewable energy is the energy form most heavily subsidised by taxes – and precisely because, far from being ignored, it is being incentivised by government regulation.

4. Brand is all mouth and no trousers

A “Pope is Catholic” point, I know. But it really was quite extraordinary the lengths to which Brand went to avoid discussing something he had written in his book and which was then quoted by Davis: “Let’s kill General Motors. Let’s take it back from the shareholders, scribble out the name and the logo and let’s use its resources for something more valuable.”

If Brand is prepared to type this tripe and then benefit from it financially as herds of Occupy-style idiots rush to buy his book, why is he so unwilling to justify his position?

5. Economics to Brand is like garlic to a vampire.

Davis gently pointed out one of the flaws in Brand’s ‘argument’ on General Motors.

“Do you know who owns it?” he asked. “The United Autoworkers’ Union owns a chunk; the Canadian government owns a chunk…”

Brand’s response was akin to Damien’s in Omen II when his parents try to take him into a church.

And if you thought that was bad, you should have seen how Brand reacted when Davis tried to show him a graph.

“I ain’t got time for a bloody graph”, he said.

6. Brand is a demagogue in the tradition of Alex Salmond, Hugo Chavez, Che Guevara.

Never mind the fine details, just keep repeating the slogans, keep intoning the boo words and the mob will love you for it.

Brand: “Evan are you seriously telling me that corporations like Monsanto and Pfizer…” (turns sidewise to appeal to imaginary audience of approving listeners: Brand uses this technique A LOT) “…are operating on behalf of us ordinary people.”

Davis never said this. He never even implied it. But this doesn’t bother Brand. What matters is that he can slip in the names of companies he knows his target audience hate.

Warming to his theme, he subsequently attacks “corporations like Vodafone, Amazon, Google that don’t pay their taxes.”

This, as Brand knows, is Occupy gold.

Read the other reasons – including 7 which is the best – at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Why the Child Benefit cuts have made me despise Cameron’s ‘Conservatives’ even more than I did already
  2. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  3. How the malign, totalitarian left played the ‘disability’ card to brand an innocent man a thought criminal
  4. The real cost of ‘global warming’


Free the Greenpeace 30!

(And spare us any more whingeing from Damon Albarn, Jude Law and that bloke out of the Clash)

The Arctic Warrior: a fine marine reserve in the making (photo: Greenpeace)

Like most caring, nurturing souls who believe in a cleaner, better, happier world I’m keen for the 30 Greenpeace activists currently being held on piracy charges by the Russians to be released from prison as soon as possible. If you saw last Thursday’s coverage of the issue on BBC Newsnight, you might understand why.

It featured an interview with Paul Simonon, formerly guitarist with the Clash, about his experiences in 2011 when – after getting involved in a similar Arctic rig protest with Greenpeace – he found himself arrested by the Norwegians. The way Emily Maitlis’s brow furrowed sympathetically during the interview, you’d think he’d been banged up for a year in the punishment block of Black Beach prison in Equatorial Guinea, not held for a day or two in a cell in Greenland. Little was left to the imagination as to where the programme’s sympathies lay; nor, perhaps, would one expect otherwise from a programme now edited by an ex-Guardian man Ian Katz.

Simonon’s heartbreakingly moving account of celebrity suffering nicely set the tone for the subsequent studio non-debate between Greenpeace’s Executive Director Kumi Naidoo and a Russian journalist. Naidoo was given carte blanche to chant the green mantra: “Scientists have told us we are heading for catastrophic climate change”…”children and grandchildren’s lives at risk”…”addicted to oil” etc. Not one of these extravagant claims was challenged by Maitlis. (To be fair, she probably wasn’t sufficiently well informed to question or contradict them – and in any case had she tried to do so she would have been in breach of the BBC’s semi-official policy to big up the great climate change threat at every opportunity.)

Maitlis did at least question Naidoo on the wisdom of sending RIBs full of Greenpeace activists against an installation as high security (and vulnerable to terrorism) as an oil platform owned by the Russians. Naidoo described Greenpeace’s action as “responsible and proportionate” – apparently because the threat posed to the world by ‘climate change’ is so grave that no action to raise awareness of it could possibly be deemed irresponsible and disproportionate. (Though as Pierre Gosselin notes at No Tricks Zone, he appears to be developing a more emollient line now that he knows that Russia means business and that any more goading and grandstanding from their mouthy executive director could cost the Greenpeace 30 rather longer in the slammer than they’d anticipated).

My sympathies in this regard are mostly with the Russians. (As are Dominic Lawson’s in this excellent piece here) They’re being painted by the BBC as the bad guys for over-reacting by imprisoning supposedly harmless, peace-loving activists as “pirates.” But how, exactly, is a country meant to react when one of its most vital industries is threatened with economic sabotage? Russia – unfortunately for the Greenpeace 30 – has yet to fall prey to the kind of intellectual decadence which now afflicts much of the West on green issues. In Europe, for example, our industry has a longstanding tradition of caving to Greenpeace’s every bullying demand – as we saw when Shell gave in over Brent Spar. And even on those rare occasions when industry stands up to it – as Kingsnorth Power Station did when it sued Greenpeace for the £30,000 of damage carried out by its protestors – Greenpeace can not only afford the best legal teams you can buy when you’re a multi-national organisation with annual global revenues of £196 million but can also rely on a sympathetic hearing from juries which have been brainwashed from childhood by a farrago of Greenpeace lies, half-truths, junk-science factoids and emotive propagandising.

I understand perfectly why the Russians wish to teach Greenpeace a lesson so hard that hereafter it will concentrate its anti-capitalist activities against countries of a more surrender-monkey persuasion. But if they really want to hit back at Greenpeace they should do so where it really hurts – financially – rather than handing it an unnecessary propaganda coup in which, day after day, the likes of Kumi Naidoo and his celebrity mates Damon Albarn, Jude Law and Paul from the Clash are able to go on presenting a bunch of hard-Left activists hell bent on destroying industrial civilisation as lovable, heroic martyrs.

If they’re feeling generous, the Russians could impound the Greenpeace boat Arctic Sunrise until Greenpeace pays them a swingeing fine. If they’re feeling a bit more hard core, they could take a leaf out of the French’s book and sink it.

Personally I’d favour the second option – purely on environmental grounds, of course. As we learnt from the disposal of the Brent Spar and also of the Rainbow Warrior, a sunken boat or a sunken oil platform do quickly make a truly excellent marine habitat.

Related posts:

  1. Redfaced Greenpeace insists ‘we didn’t make it up’ – we just ’emotionalised the issue’
  2. Greenpeace goes postal
  3. Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?
  4. Climategate: Greenpeace hoist by its own petard

One thought on “Free the Greenpeace 30! (And spare us any more whingeing from Damon Albarn, Jude Law and that bloke out of the Clash)”

  1. Uncle Bobby says:17th October 2013 at 10:00 pmI love the smell of victory in the afternoon:

    “A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and
    political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party
    members know more science than non-tea partiers.”

    Dig deeper into the article, and it appears that the RINOs are weighing the conservative movement down enough to the point where the liberals have the slight edge in scientific literacy.

    Still, I think it’s high time for a gloat.

    Let it be known that real conservatives are at the head of the class.

Comments are closed.

Come Off It, Paxo! If You Earn a Million a Year the Licence-Payer Has a Right to Know

Last night’s Newsnight saw Old Malvernian millionaire interrogator Jeremy Paxman clashing with Old Etonian millionare Mayor of London Boris Johnson. But according to Paul Waugh the most exciting bits of the interview weren’t included:

In what insiders described as “fantastic political theatre”, Mr Johnson clashed repeatedly with his interviewer over his stance on an EU referendum, on his membership of Oxford University’s Bullingdon Club and on David Cameron’s public image.”

Mr Johnson raised the issue of Paxman’s pay, saying: “You are paid elephantine sums by the taxpayer.”

Paxman replied: “If only that were true. You don’t know [what I earn]. I should stop making assertions.”

In unscreened exchanges, Mr Johnson pointed out that Londoners could see how much he earned as Mayor but licence-fee payers were not allowed similar transparency. At one point, Mr Johnson said: “Why don’t you get a proper job?”

When asked about drunken antics in his Oxford days, the Mayor replied: “Ask me a serious question…”

Splendid stuff and I quite agree with those “Mayoral Aides” (Boris?) who are urging that the full interview be put up online.

What interests me especially is the question of Paxo’s alleged £1 million salary. It interests me first as a nosey bastard. It interests me second as a licence-fee payer. But most of all it interests me ideologically.

They can be terribly grand BBC presenter types – the Paxos and Dimblebys – when quizzed about their personal lives. The salary issue, especially, they seem to think is tantamount to asking the Queen whether or not she goes to the loo. And up to a point I agree with them. A BBC political interviewer’s private life, in so far as it does not bear on his public role as frank and fearless interrogator of slippery MPs, is none of our ruddy business.

Where it is our business, though, is in cases like the Paxo/Bozza clash above. The ideological undercurrent to Paxo’s line of questioning (he may not share it but tough: that’s his karmic price for working for the pinko BBC) goes like this: “You are a toffy public school boy. David Cameron is a toffy public school boy. You were both in the Buller. You both earn way, WAY more than the national average. How can throwbacks like you possibly be fit to run modern Britain?”

This tack is outrageous and deserves to be challenged at every turn, as vigorously as possible. (Can you imagine a similar line of questioning being adopted if Boris’s and Dave’s “crimes” were to be, say, black or female or homosexual or physically handicapped?) Boris was quite right to make his response personal, for an ex public schoolboy on a million a year (or whatever Paxo earns) by asking such a question lays himself open to a charge of  hypocrisy.

No more do Boris Johnson’s or David Cameron’s class, background and income rule them out of being great, effective and morally decent politicians than Paxo’s class, background and income rule him out of being a first rate interviewer.

If Paxo wishes to be impertinent (and disingenuous) on this score, then he should damned well expect some impertinence back.

Related posts:

  1. Wind Farms: Will Paxo ride to his brother’s rescue?
  2. Boris Johnson for Prime Minister
  3. Maybe we’d be better off if David Cameron had gone to Harrow
  4. BBC endorses tax avoidance. Good. Now can we stop paying our licence fees?