Roger Helmer MEP says the BBC are paid-up propagandists

 

Roger Helmer MEP (above) writes, "What ever happened to the public service broadcasting ethos?  Whatever happened to balance and impartiality?

Living through the week in Brux, I have the privilege of waking up to the BBC World Service.  All this week, in a series of items linked to the G8 meeting in the earthquake city of Aquila, Italy, they have covered aspects of the climate debate.  Today they announced triumphantly that the G8 has declared that it will hold global warming to no more than 2 degrees C.  I wonder if history will recall the meeting as the "King Canute Summit".  Certainly the G8 will have no more success with the climate than Canute had with the waves, though his reputation may last longer than theirs.

So the BBC, in its thorough way, has had a series of interesting items on renewables, on nuclear power and so on.  Much of the nuclear section was devoted to the problems, delays and cost over-runs at the new third reactor at Olkiluoto, Finland (which I have visited -- see photo).  Very little was said about the other two reactors on the site which have been running very successfully for decades, and are now delivering the lowest-cost electricity in Finland.

In the whole week's coverage, there was not a reference to the tens of thousands of scientists, many from prestigious institutions in many countries, who reject the Great Carbon Myth (see http://www.oism.org/pproject/).  Every one of the "experts" interviewed was clearly a fully-committed, signed-up alarmist.  It was all about how we should reduce carbon emissions, not about whether we should.  Surely at least in one of their special reports through the week they might have covered the large and growing case against the "consensus"?  Not a word about whether the proposed action might actually achieve the stated goal, or whether the goal made sense in the first place.

Meantime, the world has cooled over the last five years, and the cooling looks set to continue.  But the alarmists won't let the reality deter them.  It is an interesting case study in human folly to see how long the establishment can cling to the myth in defiance of the reality.  As Lawrence Peter, author of "The Peter Principle", put it, "Bureaucrats will cling to the status quo, long after the quo has lost its status".

The BBC used to pride itself on its balance and impartiality.  Now it cannot bring itself to recognise that there are two sides to an argument.  Visit Roger's blog

Comments

[Tony Sharp]

You are absolutely right Roger and this morning on the Today programme it was more of the same.

I doubt I was the only person to see the irony of the climate change narrative being presented as an inviolable truth, then moments later listening as two men with opposing views on the wisdom of quantative easing had a vigorous debate on the issue.

As you rightly point out, there are thousands of internationally recognised scientists who question the AGW/CO2 hypothesis. How hard could it be for the BBC to invite one to give the opposing view in response to the comments emerging from Aquila? The fact that BBC editors consciously exclude the views of those outside the 'consensus'.

This is conclusive proof that the BBC refuses to let people hear the other viewpoint and that it has a set and partial editorial line concerning its coverage of the climate change topic. Or to put it another way, it is exactly what you describe - propaganda.

[Klem]

I agree completely. The BBC has been a promoter of the hysteria and one of the most blatant crusaders for global warming on the planet. On many occasions I would read a BBC climate change report and be terrified that world would soon end. But when I’d follow the links and actually read the scientists report directly, the actual study would be much more balanced. The BBC would report only the parts which supported their fear mongering. Cherry picking I think is the term.

[Derek Tipp]

Spot on, Roger. I recently wrote a piece on this subject on Conservative Home and found a lot of supportive comments were made. There is becoming a huge disconnection between those who govern us and the people on this subject.