After the infamous "Live Earth" event in which loads of pop stars and other celebrities with extravagant lifestyles preached to the rest of us about how Global Warming's our fault, The GOS wrote and complained to the BBC that they had devoted a full 15 hours of television to an unproven hypothesis.
They didn't reply. The GOS wrote again, complaining that they had devoted a full 15 hours of television to an unproven hypothesis and hadn't answered his email.
Eventually they did reply, claiming that they had already done so.
Lying b*st*rds.
Anyway, that's by way of an explanation for the fact that The GOS is laughing up his sleeve about the news that the BBC has axed another climate change show. Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton were being lined up to present "Planet Relief", a second entire day of BBC bias featuring stars like Ricky Gervais and aimed at "raising viewers' awareness" of environmental issues. Not patronising at all, then, when most of us are so aware of climate change that we're sick to death of it (I mean, forgive me, but "climate" means change, doesn't it? If things never changed there'd be no such thing as climate or weather, British people would have to learn how to make conversation, and the BBC would have to make some proper programmes for once).
But the event was condemned by two of the BBC's most senior news and current affairs executives, Newsnight editor Peter Barron and head of TV news Peter Horrocks, who claimed the project would go beyond its remit and jeopardise the corporation's impartiality. Mr.Barron claimed it was "not the corporation's job to save the planet".
Recently the BBC was accused of not being objective on green issues and of handing over the airwaves to people promoting left-wing ideas. The GOS was not the only one who objected to the ludicrous blanket coverage of the Live Earth concerts, and the BBC found that its viewing figures on that occasion were dreadful with only 900,000 viewers. Insiders have claimed that BBC chiefs were concerned that the new project could erupt into another humiliating row about impartiality and further claims that it was becoming too deeply involved in campaigning for causes. At a recent TV festival there were accusations that the BBC had decided not to follow Channel 4's lead and screen programmes sceptical about climate change. The corporation was stung by criticism in its own impartiality report in June for the unquestioning way it had thrown its weight behind single-issue campaigns.
Needless to say the Jolly Green Treebuggers (sorry, that should read "tree-huggers") are whining about their lost publicity. Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said "This is a very disappointing decision considering the huge potential for the BBC in helping us more quickly make the shift towards a low carbon society. The science of climate change is very clear …"
"The science of climate change is very clear …" - funny how they always say that, isn't it? Well, actually, it's not very surprising if you've read what we said some time ago about the environmentalists' deliberate decision to claim that the debate is over and the issue is settled, in the hope that the rest of us would believe them and give in.
Juniper added "We urge the BBC to press ahead with a major feature on climate change and think through how best it can serve its public interest purpose by encouraging greener behaviour." In other words, "help us make everybody do what we say".
Writing on Spiked Online the thinking man's … er … thinking man, Frank Furedi, said "The notion that the BBC only presents the facts, rather than 'raising public awareness' about climate change, is contradicted by its record. Virtually every BBC news item on climate change comes across like a health warning about the impending catastrophe facing humanity. Anyone who watches BBC News will be left in no doubt that virtually every flood, earthquake, drought or unusual natural occurrence around the world is a direct consequence of global warming.
It is very difficult to have a grown-up discussion when a moral crusade, such as the one around climate change, is presented to the public as factual news.
The hysterical reaction of the moral crusaders on climate change to the scrapping of Planet Relief bears all the hallmarks of medieval religious zealotry. With their fondness for conspiracy theories, the crusaders claim that the scrapping of this programme was brought about by the nefarious activities of a 'small but powerful cabal of climate change deniers'. One of the crusaders' arguments is that no one - including the BBC - can remain impartial on the issue of climate change. In other words, there can be only one legitimate and morally righteous view on the subject. The mildest hint of scepticism is denounced as morally unacceptable; thus the BBC has been attacked by one green writer for taking a 'morally bankrupt decision' in shelving Planet Relief .
This idea that the 'debate on climate change is over', and thus no dissent on the issue can be tolerated, is not confined to a tiny group of isolated illiberal fanatics. In February, Britain's former minister for the environment declared that 'climate change deniers' had better shut up 'since the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over' .
Shutting down debate on climate change is one of the principal objectives of many of today's environmentalist crusaders. Journalists who seek balance on climate change are labelled 'cowards' for refusing to take a stand against Evil. One writer has accused the BBC of putting balance before the 'responsibility that we all share to avert the catastrophe that is unfolding'. The implication is that anyone who thinks it is legitimate to have an open debate on climate change is a moral coward, or worse, someone who would have refused to take sides during the Holocaust."
On a lighter note, yachtsman Adrian Flanagan who is attempting the first single-handed "vertical circumnavigation" has come badly unstuck because he believed the predictions of the Global Warmers. He expected that the dwindling ice-pack would allow him to sail round the north of Russia, but the ice has cheated him by not dwindling, and he is stuck and has had to ask the Russians to send an ice-breaker to get him out.
Adrian Flanagan
Experts have warned him that polar bears, supposedly an endangered species, are in fact endangering him. Odd, isn't it, that polar bears who have been successfully living, hunting and breeding for thousands of years in all kinds of weather (including a period 30,000 years ago when there was no arctic ice-pack at all), now can't continue to do so without permission from scientists, environmentalists (not the same thing, sadly) and a host of celebrity "experts" like Anneka Rice and Kate Humble. The fact that polar bear numbers in Canada are increasing is immaterial - after all the science of climate change is clear and the argument over Global Warming has been won. According to scientists, environmentalists, Anneka Rice, Kate Humble and Co.
Some ice
Flanagan also reports that he became somewhat confused after receiving weather reports from the Russians which constantly seemed to refer to light and moderate winds while he was experiencing winds in excess of 30 knots. In the end he realised they were quoting wind speeds in metres per second rather than knots.
We thought seriously about making Adrian Flanagan our "Wanker of the Week", but a quick read of his excellent website shows that he doesn't deserve it, despite his current embarrassment. He has a sense of humour about things, after all: on his website he writes "In forgotten history the temperatures were very much higher than they are today and higher than the most hysterical doom forecasts from Global Warmers. It is not known whether this was due to the excessive use of 4×4 and SUV vehicles by an ancient lost civilization, pollution caused by flatulent dinosaurs, or just the continuing process of climate change as the Earth passes through cycles of increasing, or decreasing, temperature."
We have to say, though, that his proposed "vertical circumnavigation" is a bit of a put-up job - he keeps leaving his yacht "Barrabas" in some harbour, flying home for a bit of a holiday with his wife and kids, and then flying back to do the next bit. This sounds like cheating to us.
Flanagan's yacht, "Barrabas"
Still, he's doing something the rest of us wouldn't dare to attempt, and we wouldn't change places with him just at the moment for all the tea in China, polar bears in the Arctic, or trendy tripe on the BBC.
The GOS says: Going back to the BBC, there is still a major problem with their impartiality, and this manifests itself in the most unlikely places.
Last week they showed the first of a new series of the awful drama "Silent Witness", about Home Office pathologists who insist on interviewing suspects, chasing criminals and generally doing the police's job for them. Very believable.
In this episode our gallant pathologists witnessed a helicopter crashing into a camp for asylum seekers, and boy, did the hoary old clichés just trot by! The poor hard-done-by asylum seekers, almost all women and children, were seen being brutally herded into buses and driven away who knows where by the unfeeling authorities.
Meanwhile, sinister military figures appeared to take charge and it was immediately apparent that some sort of cover-up or plot was in operation. The police were all burly and thick, but good at taking orders from the military. The fire brigade did little but run from place to place in single file. And a politician turned up to give a press conference and lied through her teeth.
The GOS suspects that an awful lot of our attitudes are shaped by the film and television we use for entertainment. We can't help but absorb these stereotypes despite the fact that they are invented by script-writers for the sake of a good plot rather than from any intention to reveal the literal truth. We all believe to some extent in military cover-ups, political obfuscation and the stupidity of the police despite the fact that many policemen are perfectly intelligent, quite a few MPs are completely honest and all the military men I've ever met have been down-to-earth, straightforward types who couldn't cover up a teapot.
And the asylum seekers? Well, the left (and the BBC) would love us to believe that they're all pathetic and needy, and far too many of us fall for it. Only those of us who are older and a bit more cynical can be crude enough to say openly that it's the prospect of financial prosperity and welfare state handouts that drives many asylum seekers, not political persecution.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
This site created and maintained by PlainSite