BBC Failing To Challenge Alarmist Interviewees – Booker

Posted: November 20, 2017 by oldbrew in alarmism, bbcbias, censorship, climate, Critique
Tags: ,

Climate alarmists are allowed to exaggerate or even be wrong on the facts, when they appear on the BBC. Climate sceptics on the other hand – not so much, on the rare occasions when they get past the BBC censors and into the studio.

  1. Not deliberately, but misleading.

    From: Alex Pope [] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 3:49 PM To: ‘Tallbloke’s Talkshop’ Subject: RE: [New post] BBC Failing To Challenge Alarmist Intervieees – Booker

    When, for instance, a professor from the Grantham Institute wanted to correct any idea that computer models had got wrong their predictions of rising global temperatures, she was allowed to claim, unchallenged, that they had all been “bang on”.

    Yet last March, when Dr John Christy, who runs one of the two official satellite temperature records, presented the US Congress with a scrupulously compiled graph showing the truth of those model predictions, it made clear that only one of 105 had been anywhere the temperatures actually recorded. The rest had exaggerated the real temperatures by up to a whole degree or more.

    This article put John Christy ahead of this next statement, many may think John said this, this is deliberately misleading:

    The same professor was allowed to get away with claiming that the cost of renewable energy had “simply plummeted”. Again the real figures show otherwise. Our hugely subsidized offshore wind farms, for instance, are producing electricity for which we still have to pay up to £161 a megawatt hour, three and a half times the current wholesale price of electricity.

  2. oldbrew says:

    If you have to pay £5 for something worth £1, then 5 years later it costs £2-50, the cost may have ‘plummeted’ but it’s still terrible value for money.

  3. Bitter&twisted says:

    Like green energy, the Biased Bullsh1T Cartel would not exist without taxpayer funded subsidy.