The BBC in overdrive for global warming theory and the EU

They just cannot leave it alone. Yesterday morning on Radio 4 the early religious slot was taken by Alison Twaddle. She did an uncritical advert for global warming theory, with of course no balance or questions allowed. She told us that the

latest US great storm was the kind of event you could expect to be more frequent in an age of high CO2 output, and asked us to thank God for the climate change scientists who have revealed this truth. The link to religion was tenuous and attenuated.

This was followed by a patsy interview on Farming Today with a representative of the famous East Anglia University climate change department. There was no mention of errant emails or past controversies. The lady was able to tell us that periods of high rainfall as we have just experienced would become much more common in the years ahead, as would dry hot summers. She stressed she had no idea what the weather might be like for the next few years, but was categoric that the average experience would be both wetter in winter and hotter and drier in summer if you took the long term perspective, looking ahead 30-50 years. She was not asked to produce any evidence, not asked how she could predict the average but not the individual years that make it up, not asked why they have not forecast recent year’s weather with any success and not asked to explain why CO2 rather than water vapour, sun variation, wind and cloud patterns is seen as the crucial sole variable.

Then the Today programme sought to push the EU agenda. All this week they have promised to investigate Germany more. They started with a very unrepresentative German who likes “England” which he muddles up with the UK. His job was to reassure us all that Germany agrees with us over the EU budget and wants the UK (or England) to stay in the EU to make it all lovely. He was not asked why, for example, the UK should want to help pay the bills for Euro failure, why we should wish to continue with the CAP which is bad for taxpayers and food buyers, or why some think Germany would stop selling us her cars if we were no longer in the EU.

We were also treated to a sudden flurry of “news” on efforts by the EU to promote trade agreements around the world, after years of failing to do so. Clearly the message was the EU is heeding the UK at last. The BBC did seek to inject a little criticism into this piece, by exposing the ICT visa issue, but the main thrust was clearly to buttress the EU and show it is “going the UK’s way”, as we are so often told.

It was another very bad morning for the BBC, with sloppy journalism riding favourite hobby horses in a very uncritical way. I am writing to Lord Patten about it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Teresa Foot
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    The word theory implies an idea that may (but is probably not) be true. There are some demonstrable facts about the rate of melting of the arctic ice for instance. What is in dispute is the cause and the consequence. I agree that bringing God into it is ludicrous, but until we know the cause we should err on the side of caution and assume the worst.

    • me
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:54 am | Permalink

      If you assume the worst then there is absolutely no point in spending any money trying to prevent inevitable climate change. Even the Germans have 20 new coal fired power stations in the pipeline.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:28 am | Permalink

      You say “We should err on the side of caution and assume the worst” this is irrational, it may well be that any heating from c02 will be a positive anyway or may offset some other harmful cooling effects and thus be beneficial.

      It also ignores the huge opportunity costs of taking expensive actions on no basis when the money could have been far better used on clean water and basic inoculations, medicine and nutrition for those in need.

      It would be like a goat saying I will not go out of the cave to eat the grass because there might be a lion out there, best to “err on the side of caution” and starve to death in the cave. There is a balance of risk and reward we simply do not know, predicting the future is rather hard to do, especially without most of the input data.

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 11:04 am | Permalink

        In this case it is almost certainly an imaginary Lion anyway. Much in common with other religions.

        • Bazman
          Posted November 29, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

          Your religion is right wing fatalistic claptrap and as long as this ‘think’ does not effect you personally are quite happy to continue to believe it. You had a revelation on banking deciding that regulation was need in some form to makes banks lend to ‘sensible’ projects. You have gone to ground with your opinions on holiday homes and Switzerland presumably because you have no more ideas and think in some way though you cannot explain why, but are wrong. A religious belief in fact. The same applies to Prof Lindzen and climate change. More egregious beliefs supported by your priest Dingbat.
          You hope climate change will not effect you like right wing economics, and so advocate more help to those countries usually third world that it does. Eventually they will be blamed for any climate change for sure, but it it ever does no one will cry more than the right wing fantasists and dreamers. A bit like unemployment here the ones trying to find more hours t0o work are the ones punished. Ram it.

          • lifelogic
            Posted November 30, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

            What is needed to make banks lend is more competition and in the current climate fewer of the restrictions that are preventing them lending to industry or worse forcing them to lend to governments.

          • David Price
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 8:35 am | Permalink

            Have you got rid of your three aircon units yet?

        • Bazman
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 10:07 am | Permalink

          You seem to think I am some sort of hypocrite David Price. I am for efficient use of sustainable electricity not for stopping the use. The air con was installed by a very reputable and professional company. The units are the most efficient and best on the market. Though air con can never be described as cheap to run. Think of a large fridge. The insulation ensures surprisingly low electricity use. My house uses less than 4000 units a year. Do you even know your electricity consumption or even care?

          • David Price
            Posted December 2, 2012 at 6:04 am | Permalink

            Given the degree to which you lambast others over the AGW issue, yes I do think it hypocrisy to be running so many aircons in a country with such a mild climate.

            Like many people I care how much energy our household uses simply to keep costs down and avoid waste.

            I increased the insulation of my property (double glazing and doubled loft insulation) and track our energy usage on a monthly basis – last month we used 365 kWh of electricity, while in the last 12 months it was 4080. I do this to see if the insulation has had any appreciable effect and to audit the energy company bills. I don’t have any aircon and rely on passive measures such as shade and airflow which should be generally sufficient for residential properties in this country.

          • Bazman
            Posted December 2, 2012 at 9:45 am | Permalink

            Yeah… Nice to have it have it during the hot summers, when we have them that is, especially at night and in the bedrooms during the winter as the heat too. My work, when I have some of that, is very hot during these days and I do not appreciate sweating as the living/sleeping areas face south. I often switch them off and wear a hair shirt under a plastic track suit to punish myself for using them. You should do the same as you are using more energy than me without climate control. Ram it.

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

        As the “science” becomes more and more discredited and the temperature record less and less in accordance with predictions the warmists and the BBC becomes more and more desperate.

        • uanime5
          Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

          Got any evidence to back up your claims? Thought not.

          The only thing being discredited are the deniers who everyday seem more like flat-earthers.

          • Bob
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:00 am | Permalink

            The BBC are behaving like flat-earthers. Otherwise why would they try to conceal the attendance list of the 28gate conference?

            Same reason the CRU wanted to “hide the decline” I suppose.


          • cerberus
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:05 am | Permalink

            Sadly when it comes to evidence you have obviously been entirely misled by the alarmists. The only evidence for AGW came from IPCC computer models which were soon comprehensively discredited. Not a shred of real world evidence over the whole of geologic time has ever suggested a link between CO2 and climate. Do a modicum of research before spouting off.

          • Edward
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink

            uni, did you forget that the flat earthers were proved wrong by better science which replaced their settled science.

          • lifelogic
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

            Yes, the actual temperature records and the mere application of basic statistics which clearly show nothing abnormal or remotely likely to be catastrophic.

      • Credible
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

        Lifelogic, most people on this blog argue that we shouldn’t be providing overseas aid when we have our own domestic problems!

        Goats don’t usually talk, but if one did it might say “There’s a lion out there (possibly!), lets build a fence to protect ourselves from it” (although goats don’t build fences either).

        • lifelogic
          Posted November 30, 2012 at 9:52 am | Permalink

          The point is the precautionary principal here is absurd. The evidence is far too weak and removing c02 is not even the best way to cool the earth if that were ever needed. The earth may be cooling anyway in the next 100 years.

          The real risks to humanity might anyway come from a new disease, impacts from asteroids, wars, a new ice age and countless other things. We have certain limited assets and should use these take “reasonable” precautions. One cannot sensibly argue that it is reasonable to spend the vast amounts needed, to reduce c02 based on current science. The money is simply far better spent elsewhere, where real results are certain.

          • uanime5
            Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

            Given that you have no idea what this evidence is how do you know that it’s too weak?

          • Bazman
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

            What is this? A bible class? Totalitarian entities from states to cults use this nonsense.

        • John Fitzgerald
          Posted November 30, 2012 at 11:06 am | Permalink


          You are correct, Goats do not build fences or speak. However your analogy is still both helpful and descriptive!

          • lifelogic
            Posted November 30, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

            So the goat builds such a fence, using huge resources and then finds the danger is not a lion but a poisonous snake that comes under it, or a high jumping hyena that comes over it, or some one with a gun or a large flying eagle.

            Take precautions only when you know what the real threat is.

    • Disaffected
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:48 am | Permalink

      Maybe but this is not the point of debate. The BBC had a policy meeting which was hidden from the licence fee payers about global warming. A decision was made by all key policy makers in the BBC not to give those who oppose global warming theory the same air time. In other words it made a policy decision to be bias towards global warming without proper scientific evidence or balance in view. If this point is weighed against the BBC Charter of an independent impartial broadcaster it leaves itself in tatters. it is a socialist organisation without being held to account properly because of the the structure and composition of the BBC Trust.

      Time for radical change. The public can no longer afford an expensive state propaganda unit that is effectively unaccountable and is no longer in the mood to accept it. Cameron, me old mate, use Leveson and the Saville case as an excuse to bring about change- hint, you should have done this two and half years ago. We appreciate that you need focus groups to act and make decisions but even you must realise that something needs to be done.

      • Robert Christopher
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 11:43 am | Permalink

        Thank you John for bringing this dreadful situation to our attention. And we are paying for it in more ways than one!

        Here are some useful links:

      • A Different Simon
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

        Disaffected ,

        If Cameron picks a fight with the media , either BBC or the papers , they have mountains and mountains of dirt which they can retaliate with .

        The House of Commons needs to get it’s house in order first .

        Sacrificing a few dead paedophiles and child molesters isn’t enough .

        Parliament has to cough up all the current (law breaking-ed) MP’s no matter what position of power they are in .

        Same as MP’s replacing their defined benefit pension with a defined contribution pension before they can reform state sector pensions . It’s just not going to happen .

        The chances the Parliament putting it’s own house in order are remote ; collectively the BBC and parliament have too much to lose for anything to change .

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

        Well clearly Cameron does not realise – otherwise how on earth could he appoint Lord Patten, the very embodiment of BBC think?

      • uanime5
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

        Given that the science shows that climate change is real there’s no point giving equal airtime to cranks who claim global warming is a communist conspiracy. The BBC made it’s decision because the deniers don’t have any scientific evidence to back them up.

        Also your delusions about socialist conspiracies doesn’t make the BBC’s decision wrong.

        • Its Me
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 10:23 am | Permalink

          Nobody disputes that “climate change is real”, climate changes all the time. What is disputed is that CO2-induced climate change is going to have (or indeed is already having) catastrophic consequences. The official tornado count in the US is at a record low this year and has been trending downwards since the 1970s; you wouldn’t know that from the media coverage.

          If it’s all about science, why was the BBC meeting packed with campaigners rather than scientists? Only 2 or 3 out of the 28 invitees were scientists working in climate-related fields. The Green Party comes nowhere in elections. Why is green politics being introduced like this?

        • Bob
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:04 am | Permalink

          “science shows that climate change is real”

          I think you may be confusing science with propaganda based on “man made” data.

        • Edward
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

          The phrase “climate change is real” is completly meaningless.

        • graphicconception
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

          Both warmists and skeptics agree that the climate is now changing.

          The difference is that sceptics think it has always been changing but warmists think it was not changing until the Industrial Revolution.

    • Richard1
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:49 am | Permalink

      Pursuing that logic a huge investment in giant rockets to shoot down asteroids would be justified. In the absence of any evidence of continued global warming and catastrophic consequences, such as was forecast when this theory originated in the 1980s, we should not be burdening the economy and our future prospects by all this ‘climate change’ legislation and associated costs and taxes.

      • uanime5
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

        There’s evidence that climate change is real, there’s no evidence that an asteroid is about to hit earth. Thus there’s no reason to build asteroid destroying missiles but there is a very good reason to prevent the average temperature rising further.

        • Bob
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:12 am | Permalink


          There is plenty of evidence that the earth could be hit by an asteroid at any time.

          Global temperatures have been declining for over a decade.

          In the 1970’s scientists were warning of a new ice age looming.

        • graphicconception
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

          I disagree with your logic.

          Asteroids have hit the earth in the past so that can and does happen.
          Catastrophic anthropogemic global warming has never happened, ever.

          Surely, it makes more sense to protect ourselves fron real problems rather than hyopothetical ones?

        • Richard1
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

          There is evidence of climate change – there has always been climate change. What there is not is conclusive evidence of human induced global warming leading to catastrophic consequences such as was forecast 25 years ago, leading to all the climate change legislation and taxes and other costs we now have. The issue is much less certain than your vituperative posts on this issue suggest. The BBC ought not therefore to be so one-sided on the question.

        • lifelogic
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

          We know for sure that something from space will hit the earth at some point, they do so all the time. Hopefully they will not be too big or too imminent or too near me.

          • APL
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

            lifelogic: “We know for sure that something from space will hit the earth at some point, they do so all the time.”

            Not only that, we know something from outer space has
            hit the earth at some point in the past too.

            That is evidence, not conjecture. Conjecture is all AGW ‘theory’ is.

          • lifelogic
            Posted December 2, 2012 at 9:22 am | Permalink

            Indeed you only have to look at the all the craters on the moon.

    • Caterpillar
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:21 am | Permalink


      Does the word ‘theory’ imply that. I thought ‘theory’ tended to imply a coherent set of of propositions that, in the case of scientific theories, lead to testable propositions (through e.g. falsifiability or Bayesian confirmation).

      A precautionary principle approach can in itself lead to poor decision-making … oh a country may have WMD, we don’t know but it may, we had better invade…

      I would prefer a flexibility of response approach, combined with research to resolve the uncertainties.

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 1, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink


    • Cliff. Wokingham.
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 11:09 am | Permalink

      A few years ago. NASA stated that the ice caps on Mars were melting at proportionally the same rate as ours here on Earth. I wonder how many cars and coal fired power stations there are on Mars?

      Perhaps we should err on the side of caution however, in my opinion, it would be wiser to spend just a proportion of the huge amount we are now spending on trying to prevent, what is likely to be a natural phenomenon, on adapting for any negative things that may or may not happen in the future.
      I agree, climate has and will continue to change, but our species has both survived and indeed flourished, by being able to adapt to climatic changes and climatic events.

      Sadly, too many people have invested too much money in and stand to make too much money from, the new false religion to allow it to be reigned back.

      • wab
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

        “Sadly, too many people have invested too much money in and stand to make too much money from, the new false religion to allow it to be reigned back.”

        I think you’ll find that sadly, too many people have invested too much money in and stand to make too much money from, the old false religion (fossil fuels) to allow it to be reigned back.

        Indeed, follow the money. Exxon/Esso by itself is worth several hundred billion dollars.

        • Cliff. Wokingham.
          Posted November 30, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink


          You are right that we have been and indeed, perhaps still are, too wedded to fossile fuels and I suspect, that is why we as a planet have been too slow to develop alternatives.

          I do not feel that our adiction to fossile fuels can be described as a religion though because there is no real faith in accepting that fossile fuels work. Fossile fuels will, at some point in time, run out and that is why we should develop sensible alternatives.
          Man made dangerous climate change does require a religious type faith for one to accept it: no one doubts that our climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change but, by charging people a fortune to carry on their lives or to carry on in business is folly. We are hamstringing our industry in the name of the new false religion: we are destroying rain forest to produce green fuels like bio-diesel, that is hardly green nor in the spirit of the green agenda and aims.

          In our northern position, many of the renewable alternatives are unreliable and thus, we need conventional power sources to be on standby with all the associated costs. We need a sensible mixture of alternative power, but given our northern location on the globe, I suspect we should look at nuclear power as our main or major source with tidal power as a second one: we are afterall an island nation.

          When I was growing up, being green meant being nieve and inexperienced and perhaps, using that definition, our government is indeed the greenest there has ever been:-)

          Taking care of the planet does make sense afterall, one doesn’t want to soil one’s own bed so to speak.

          My fear is that what former French President Chirac said a few years ago is the main driving force behind the new false religion. He stated that the climate change agenda will likely lead to a global government and that is something I fear.

          • uanime5
            Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

            Given that climate change is supported by scientific evidence, while the deniers are supported by nothing it’s clear that the latter is a religion while the former is not.

            In Brazil they’ve been tearing down the rainforest to make biofuels not because of climate change but because it’s cheaper than importing oil. They’ve also been doing this long before anyone tried to reduce their CO2 emissions.

          • Edward
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

            The two points you make are wrong

            1 There is plenty of science which disagrees with the CAGW theory
            2 The big increase in recent demand for bio fuels has been driven by the rush to find alternatives to fossil fuels caused by Govt’s response to theories and pressures of the CAGW movement.

      • Sebastian Weetabix
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

        Strictly speaking they are disappearing through sublimation, but your point is otherwise a fair one.

    • Timaction
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

      Mr Redwood your comments on both Global warming, the BBC and the EU are spot on the money. So why are your leadership not doing anything about it? At the best moments in history to reform all of these issues they sit on their hands and look the other way. It tells me what their true views and positions are on these issues. With the elections yesterday you need to see the writing is on the wall from the electorate. We’ve all moved tothe right and have had enough. Everyone outside of the Westminster bubble already knows we’ve been lied to and continue to be lied to and nothing is being done. All issues that need emergency action are being fudged and kicked down the road. Immigration? Another 500,000 arrived last year and we get Bulgaria and Romania next year. Anyone would say that with 6.5 million unemployed this is beyond incompetence and now has to be deliberate policy.

    • Ruperto
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

      “The word theory implies an idea that may (but is probably not) be true. ”

      Not in science: quantum theory, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, heliocentric theory (that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way round)…

      In science a theory is a set of logical ideas, which are consistent and fit the data: this is our current best explanation for the way the world works.

      Anthogenic Global Warming is exactly that: there has been an idea for over 100 years that as the amount of CO2 rises (which it is) the the temperature will rise: which, just as predicted it did do.

      C P Snow wrote of the two cultures: it is deeply worrying that fifty years later educated people like yourself & Mr Redwood are ill informed about science when it is si important to our world. This is a particularly huge example, of course.

      Reply: You are taking such a simple minded approach to this complex problem. My main disagrgeements with global warming theorists lie in remedies – it is an economic argument, and one about world versus individual country government and competence. There are also questions to discuss about the relaitonship of human produced CO2 to other sources of CO2, the role of water vapour, cloud formation, sun activity, the jet stream etc. Please do not pretent that climate is simple to predict or only changes from one reason, human produced CO2, because that is just absurd.

    • uanime5
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

      In science the word theory means that something has been proven by a body of evidence, such as the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution.

      • Edward
        Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

        Theory does not mean “proven” just currently believed.

      • Bob
        Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

        “proven by a body of evidence”

        As we know, the CRU make up their own “evidence” to fit their theology.

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 1, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

        It can be used for all sorts of funny theories:-

        The intelligent design theory, the catastrophic man made fiery hell on earth theory, the theory that PV cells and wind energy currently make any economic sense in the UK, the theory that government job creation schemes (funded by taxes on jobs) can work, the theory that giving free money to the healthy feckless is a good plan, the theory that women are paid less mainly due to “discrimination”, the spirit level theory, the theory that tax borrow and waste is good for growth, or the theory that you can pick yourself up off the ground just by pulling on your shoe laces.

      • David Price
        Posted December 2, 2012 at 6:13 am | Permalink

        Uanime5 – You are confusing the word “theory” with the word “theorem”.

    • Garyessex
      Posted December 1, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      I am still puzzled as to why “climate change” is always viewed in apocalyptic terms by the BBC and has to be bad for the UK?
      Could it be a force for good or on balance have no overall impact – that’s if you believe this stuff.
      So what if there are wetter winters and hotter summers. One seems to cancel out the other.
      Of course, we don’t seem to ever hear much about global warming these days – or, for example, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer (in fact, was it repaired?).

      • lifelogic
        Posted December 2, 2012 at 9:25 am | Permalink

        Indeed, hotter, in the past has usually been better and we know it is better for crops in the main.

  2. Freeborn John
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    I made 4 complaints to the BBC last week about various pro-EU TV & radio 4 broadcasts and a BBC Online article where they interviewed 7 Continental politicians (most of them current or former employees of EU institutions or pro-EU ‘think-tanks’) who were all in favour the UK staying in the EU with not a single advocate of the alternative position. And this 7-0 lack of BBC balance persisting despite all recent opinion polls showing the alternative of EU withdrawal to be supported by over 50% of the British population!

    The BBC EU bias is simply intolerable and I would hope that more and more people use the BBC online complaints procedure to tell the state broadcaster so.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

      Will complaint make the slightest difference I think not?

    • uanime5
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

      When when the entire population of the UK polled regarding their position on the EU. I trust your not confusing a small study conducted on a few people with the will of everyone in the UK.

      Given that UKIP got 5% of the votes in the 2010 MP election and 18% of the votes in the 2009 MEP election it’s clear that only 5-18% of the UK supports leaving the EU.

      Reply: Not so. More than half the electorate now wish to leave the EU accoridng to polls, and more of them vote Conservative than vote UKIP in most elections.

      • Bob
        Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink


        You must remember that the Tories pretend to be EU sceptical in the lead up to elections; if they were to tell their voters that they want to stay in the EU at all costs they would have less of them.

  3. Paul
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    Well today is a good day to bury bad news, the long awaited energy bill, with the publication of the Leverson inquiry being debated in the house.

    • Disaffected
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:57 am | Permalink

      Absolutely. I wonder if Osborne will be on the news circuit full of contrition accepting he capitulated, again, to wasting billions of taxpayers’ pounds on stupid wind farms; that the government’s policy will make it more likely that industry will collapse or leave the UK; people will not be able to afford to heat or light their homes and as Ofgem has already warned there might be blackouts in three years time. And why has Osborne done this? The economy is meant to be the number one priority. Is this his strategy to change the Tory party image? Economics, EU, welfare, immigration, energy, gay marriage. You name it they fail to deliver on it. At the moment people like me think he and Cameron are in cloud cuckoo land and will never vote for them.

      Remember this when you vote.

      • John Harrison
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

        I agree. Tat are closing steel plants in the UK and moving them abroad quoting ‘high energy prices’ as the most significant reason.

      • uanime5
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

        There are likely to be blackouts because various government have closed old power plants but haven’t built any new ones to replace them.

  4. Mike Stallard
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    Please would you remind us how much grant aid the BBC is currently receiving from the EU?

    • Jerry
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:32 am | Permalink

      @Mike Stallard: Could you tell us what you think the figure is, and how you come to that conclusion, and what exactly these payment (if any) are for [1], also if any other UK broadcaster gets them?

      [1] and if they are they cash grants or in-kind, such as cheap/free use of building space or resources etc.

      • Edward
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

        Ive found this :-

        Although from a few years, ago it outlines the figures moving between the EU and the BBC

        • lifelogic
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

          Hence the indoctrination one assumes. Taxes used to con the very voters who paid them.

      • outsider
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

        Dear Jerry, I once made the mistake of assuming that EU funding was just for BBC Online’s feed of the European Parliament ( a must for anyone who wants to understand how the EU works). I was soon corrected. It is much, much more.

    • David Price
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

      According to parliamentary info it was £258m for 2003 – 2008 (

      According to the Telegraph in Feb 2012 the BBC received £3m in grants in the past 4 years and £141m in loans from the EU (

      Perhaps an FOI request might get some answers …

      • uanime5
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

        What percentage of the BBC’s budget is the EU’s contribution? If it’s a small amount then it’s unlikely to have any effect on the BBC.

        • Edward
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

          How very trusting of you to think that a few hundred million given to a world wide media organisation would have little or no effect on its independence.
          Would you say the same if the CIA or a multi national oil company were giving the BBC huge sums?

        • Bob
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

          But why should the BBC be receiving money from a foreign power?

        • David Price
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

          The right question to ask about the BBC is what conditions are attached to a gift or loan from the EU. For example, would the recipient be forbidden to criticise the EU in any way shape or form?

          • lifelogic
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

            Of course it will not be in writing, just quietly understood where the BBC interests might lie.

  5. Sue
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    Which is why I categorically refuse to pay for the licence!

    • Jerry
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:36 am | Permalink

      @Sue: Indeed, no one is forced to watch live television in the UK. Unfortunately such a stance doesn’t help those who dislike paying for other biased broadcasting that is being funded via adverts on commercial and subscription TV, advertising that everyone pays for through the supermarket or high street tills.

      • Disaffected
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

        You have a choice with the BBC you do not.

        • Jerry
          Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:54 am | Permalink

          @Disaffected: You mean someone forces you to watch TV?!

          I can choose if you buy a TVL, I have no choice (other than perhaps buy a small holding and become totally self sufficient) about funding commercial/subscription TV due to advertising, so perhaps all TV should have to become subscription only, abolish both the TVL and commercial TV?…

        • A Different Simon
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

          I suppose the answer is for everybody to refuse to pay the TV license fee .

          This would be fundamentally different from refusing to pay local and national taxes used to provide essential service .

          If enough people stopped doing what they were told the establishment might not be so quick to push them around .

      • outsider
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

        Dear Jerry, If you rely on radio for news and current affairs, (as I do despite having a TV licence), you will notice that there is no national source and in most places no regional source other than the BBC. That is why our peculiar British institution needs to be balanced in its presentation and make a clear distinction between its objective news coverage and its personal opinion commentaries, as it was always intended to do.

        • Jerry
          Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:59 am | Permalink

          @outsider: Indeed and you make a very good argument for the retention of the TVL fee, it is precisely because the commercial and subscription sectors can’t or wont provide such services that PSB is vital and always will be. As for balance, all media should be thus, but I don’t hear to many people complaining on this blog about bias in other broadcasters because they feel that it isn’t bias but the ‘truth’ (in other words what they want to hear)…

          • uanime5
            Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

            I know what you mean. Almost everyone screamed blue murder over about the BBC and Lord McAlpine but completely ignored ITV and the paedophile list. It seems that something is only wrong if the BBC is doing it.

            Reply: THe BBC was more in the firing line because they employed Savile extensively and had a duty of care as an employer to their staff and guests.

          • David Price
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 8:48 am | Permalink

            Jerry: So you are happy that the BBC is biased, does not have to adhere to it’s charter, agreement and the broadcasting code, we should not complain and we should continue to be taxed the TVL on pain of imprisonment?

            Your justification is that this behaviour is OK because apparently everyone else does it?

    • bob webster
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

      Our telly went in the skip 10 years ago, when broadband arrived in our area. We now get all the (archived) entertainment and unbiased news we require via the net. I would urge everyone who objects to the BBC’s egregious left wing spinning to do the same. When The beeb sends the heavies round, just tell them you don’t have a contract with their employer and that they have no right to search your house for illicit receiving equipment.

      • Bob
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

        Search “the great tv license scam” on YouTube.

  6. Adam5x5
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    It’s been like this for a long time.

    Yeah, right.

    Clearly the message was the EU is heeding the UK at last.
    I would say the message is that the EU is beginning it’s propaganda war over an increasingly likely referendum. They’ve just fired the first shot and unveiled their big gun – don’t expect the BBC to provide anything like a balanced viewpoint.

    • Liz
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:07 am | Permalink

      The BBC is part of the EU propoganda machine and is already getting setting the scene for the liklihood of an in/out EU referendum. This is why I think it unlikely that the “out” would win despite the polls – with the BBC relentlessly batting for the stay in” camp it would be an uneven contest. Lord Patten and Tony Hall will not do anything about it as they are both EU fanatics.
      Incidentally they should not be providing online articles and undermining the newspaper industry. Their website should be about the programmes they offer and nothing else.

    • Jerry
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      I wouldn’t expect any UK broadcaster to provide anything like a balanced viewpoint, that is, until any of the relevant election laws that might apply to a referendum to come into force.

      • Adam5x5
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, I wouldn’t expect or want a privately owned broadcaster to promote anything other than what the owner wants it to.

        The issue is that the BBC charter expressly states that the BBC should be impartial.
        It is not.

        Either the BBC needs fixing and reverted back to impartiality or it needs to change to a private subscription service.

      • Edward
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

        If the BBC didnt charge me £140 for a licence to be able to legally do what nearly 100% of homes want to do, and that is watch the main TV freeview channels, I wouldn’t mind a bit that the BBC or any other broadcasters were biased.
        It is pedantic to say we are not forced to pay the licence fee, we have very little choice in the matter.
        If theBBC offered a subscription service, I could decide as a customer to include their channels or not.
        That is why the BBC has a charter and that charter legally requires it to be impartial, balanced in its output and independent, which it is not.

        • Jerry
          Posted November 30, 2012 at 9:06 am | Permalink

          @Edward: Do you own and run a car, do you also object to the VED, do you object to having to pay for roads that you will never ever use in your lifetime?…

          • Edward
            Posted November 30, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

            Jerry that is a rubbish comparison.
            With TV, if I want to legally watch any live freeview channels I have to pay for the BBC ones.
            I should be able to decide if I want the BBC channels or not in the stations I decide to receive.
            That is easily achievable in todays digital age.

            I do run a car and yes, I do object to the VED, whch should be included into the price of fuel.
            The more you drive the more you pay.
            Freedom of choice yet again.

          • lifelogic
            Posted November 30, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

            This is a very silly analogy we are not pay to provide infrastructure for all broadcasters (as with road users) we are just paying all to one dominant, and very biased, broadcaster.

          • sm
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

            The TV License funds the BBC mostly.

            Using your analogy. Why do you have to pay for an extra car that you would not choose to drive, which doesn’t appear to pass its MOT and whoose steering only takes you to the places where you are allowed to go. You must not be allowed freedom of information or transparency of view.

            If it did hold power to account and act in the interest of open government , it might…might be worth arguing about.
            At the moment £3.5bn of taxes from earners could spend elsewhere, except ofcourse on low cost alcoholic drinks.

      • David Price
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

        But the BBC is required by the agreement associated with it’s charter to not press it’s own opinion and it must provide balanced coverage.

        It doesn’t matter what other broadcasters do, the requirements on the BBC are very clear, and it has been in breach of them for some time.

        • Jerry
          Posted November 30, 2012 at 9:11 am | Permalink

          But the BBC regularly gets complaints from BOTH the political right and left regarding the BBC being politically biased against them, that would suggest that they are doing exactly as they should…

          • David Price
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 9:05 am | Permalink

            Jerry: Are you able to prove the assertion that they regularly get complaints from (only?) political viewpoints? Is there an independent source of information on the BBC complaints process you have access to? If so, can you tell me why they never responded to my complaint?

            Regardless of that you are conflating bias and politics. The BBC has demonstrable bias in many areas, including issues around AGW, Energy, Palestine etc, etc.

            I have not become a BBC sceptic because of political bias but because it has become clear I cannot trust them to be unbiased about anything, they have breached their commitments and they waste my money.

          • Bob
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

            Quite aside from their political agenda, the BBC are very wasteful of license payers money. Sporting events and concerts turn into huge jollies for hundreds of BBC staff at a time.

      • outsider
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

        Dear Jerry, I don’t know if you remember the rules legislated for a referendum. As memory serves, they were set up in anticipation of a referendum on euro entry, were heavily focused on favouring an estabishment view and on preventing anyone like Sir James Goldsmith financing a counter campaign (even though, again as memory serves, Goldsmith himself, of whom I was no fan, was no longer with us by then).

        • Jerry
          Posted November 30, 2012 at 9:15 am | Permalink

          @outsider: Must have been one hell of a three line whip on the Labour side to get that through, considering that the Labour party was split on Euro entry.

  7. NickW
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    The BBC is now a toxic brand and I will have nothing to do with them in any way whatever.

    I won’t buy a licence, I won’t buy BBC DVDs, I have complete contempt for any opinions they express and do not trust any of their news.

    We don’t watch broadcast TV at all, and obtain our news from twenty or so bookmarked sources on the Internet.

    And I’m not the only one.

    The BBC and part time Patten will ignore your letter as they ignore all complaints, because they are Independent, which means in their eyes that they can do anything they want and no one can stop them.

    • NickW
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:27 am | Permalink

      Here is Paragraph 44 of the BBC Agreement;

      “44. Accuracy and impartiality
      (1) The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.

      (2) In applying paragraph (1), a series of programmes may be considered as a whole.

      (3) The UK Public Services must not contain any output which expresses the opinion of the BBC or of its Trust or Executive Board on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.

      The Agreement is a legal document and it states with complete clarity that BBC output cannot be used to express the opinions of staff and Trust.

      That is exactly what is happening; the BBC has been hijacked and is being used to ram the opinions of the Trust and its staff down our throats, and whenever anyone complains, the BBC cites its independence and carries on regardless.

      Writing letters is not enough; they will simply be ignored.

      The Charter and the Agreement can be easily located by googling “BBC Charter”

      • lifelogic
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:32 am | Permalink

        Indeed the BBC staff seem to think the same. Have they all been brain washed by some sinister “Guardian Think” machine design by Polly Toynbee or someone perhaps in the basement of the BBC?

        • Jerry
          Posted November 29, 2012 at 11:55 am | Permalink

          You wouldnt be complaining if they had been al;ll brain washed by some “Telegraph (or Daily Mail, or The Sun etc.) Think” would you Lifelogic, once again in an unguarded comment you allow your own total bias opinion s to shine through the fog of political blogging…

          • Edward
            Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

            But that is the point isnt it?
            You, lifelogic and every other citizen in this country, is perfectly entitled to their opinions and by definition their opinions will be biased.
            But the BBC is bound by a charter which says it must not be biased and that it must remain impartial and independent.

            Plainly the BBC has taken a position on many current controversial political issues and this is contrary to its obligations under its charter.
            The new DG should address that failing.

          • RB
            Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

            I would.

            I dont want a state broadcaster that reflects my views and prejudices. I want one that does what it is legally obliged to do – to give full weight to all ranges of opinion and thought.

            Using your logic, though, it is interesting to see how many few people whose views chime with the unacceptable biased output of the BBC have complained about it – none as far as I can see.

            This “shines through” very clearly in my view.

          • forthurst
            Posted November 29, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

            Actually, some of us don’t want to be brainwashed by anyone; some of us simply wish to be given the facts so that we can make up our own minds. That is frequently the case with more intelligent people, especially if they have a scientific background. Most of us are aware of political bias in the organs you reference. However, there is equal bias in the far less popular, loss-making organs of the left.

            The issue with the BBC is that it is Charter bound and purports to be what it is not, namely a source of reliable unbiased reporting, giving equal weight to controversial matters.

            I don’t listen to it any more, so I was somewhat thrown by JR’s post and taking into account the cleric’s name in the first sentence, read about half before deducing that it was not satire.

          • lifelogic
            Posted November 29, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

            I am not biased just rational, numerate and scientific – rather than all gut feelings, envy and childish emotions.

          • Disaffected
            Posted November 29, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

            Jerry, you irrationally miss the point and fail to understand the purpose of the BBC. The country simply does not need it in this day and age.

          • Jerry
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

            @Disaffected: Whilst you singly fail to understand what PSB is, and why it is needed.

          • Bob
            Posted December 3, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

            “you singly fail to understand what PSB is, and why it is needed.”

            Go on then Jerry, tell us what it is and why it’s needed.

        • NickW
          Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

          The BBC, like many organisations, recruits in its own image, and by so doing has now divorced itself from mainstream opinion and the general public.

          Personally; I think the rot has gone too far; trust has been lost to too great an extent and the organisation cannot save itself, or be saved by change imposed from outside.

          The BBC needs to be silenced before it destroys the Country with its unaffordable socialism, unproven climate theories now adopted as fact, and its treacherous determination to hand the Country over to unelected and demonstrably incompetent European leaders.

        • Credible
          Posted November 29, 2012 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

          The world will be heaven when we all adopt (completely unbiased) ‘Lifelogic Think’

          • uanime5
            Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

            Given that ‘Lifelogic Think’ involves no welfare, no employees rights, and no taxes to the wealthy the UK will go back to Victorian times rather than become heaven for most people.

          • Bob
            Posted December 3, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

            A sensible level of welfare is one thing, but what we have created in the UK is a white elephant which is pulling the nation down.

            Some people on benefits are getting more money than they could ever hope to earn in a job, because they are either uneducated, unskilled, unreliable or lazy. Oftentimes all of those things.

        • stred
          Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

          The odd thing about the BBC is that they allow some journalists to put out really intestesting programmes. Presumambly, this means that their management is not just incompetent but also overpaid.

          There was a programme on’ File on 4′ last year about the police trawling for internet paedos, which seemed to show that many totally innocent accidental ‘tappers’ had been arrested and the whole process resembled an inqisition.

          Last week there was an article on BBC 4 about the conversion of a major power station at Drax to take wood waste instead of coal. Incredibly, the station would require more than the entire woods int he UK to keep going every year. I listened, unable to believe this was a serious programme, as they interviewed the head of the project, a very nice lady, who seemed to think it would all be fine because they could import waste wood from the rest of the World. Never mind all the co2 to bring it here, or whether it would be available.

          Sorry to sound impertinent, but it was your own staff Chris. Possibly, while you were on your day off counting the money.

  8. Steve Cox
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    Very good criticisms, John. You have my full support, and that of many other followers of your excellent blog I am sure.

  9. APL
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    JR: ” She did an uncritical advert for global warming theory, “by Alison Twaddle.

    Appropriate surname for the topic.

    JR: ” .. and asked us to thank God for .. ”

    This sort of (nonsense-ed) is what gives the CoE a bad name among sensible people.

    I don’t know if Alison Twaddle is a CoE affiliate, or just a franchisee of the company, but they pretty much all spout the same twaddle or they don’t get onto the BBC ‘religion’ spot, first thing in the morning.

    Reply: I think she comes from Scotland

    • ian wragg
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

      Then it should be McTwaddle!!!

  10. alan jutson
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Perhaps all of the recent floods are due to the combined effect of so many listeners all weeping at the same time at the lack of balanced reporting by the BBC.

    I wish you luck with your letter to Mr Pattern, at least you should get a response given he knows you are an MP.

    Not trying to minimise the devastating effect of the floods on so many people, but then that is what you tend to get when you do not maintain ditches, build on flood planes, and do not maintain or install flood defences.

    Brother in law witnessed this year, trees and bushes being cut down on a nearby railway embankment, and then rolled into the rainwater ditches.
    Reason given to him by workers for not taking them away.
    They now have to leave them to decay naturally in order to help the environment.

    Four years ago this same ditch was blocked with debris and undergrowth, and caused flooding to houses nearby.

    Lessons learned, I think not !

    • Disaffected
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:07 am | Permalink

      You would think instead of wasting £32 billion on a single railway line that the money could be used to capture and distribute water better. In April we had the useless Environment Secretary Spellman warning us of droughts, then within weeks we had floods and now six months on floods again.

      However, no sign of change in the capture or distribution of water (or waste), it was reported that her department was concentrating on reducing water leaks rather than build new reservoirs in the south east. This is based on the background that mass immigration continues to soar, the birth rate is four times higher than in 1980 and to most of us it would appear that the UK will need resources for the artificial inflated increase in population. It does not appear to stack up that the government pursues a policy of mass immigration and then does nothing about the infrastructure to cope other than announce we are in times of austerity. The same is true with their stupid energy policy.

    • bj'sputer
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink

      “They now have to leave them to decay naturally in order to help the environment.”

      And newts.

      One of our local pits/tips (aggregates and waste/recycling) flooded last Wednesday and spilled out to flood the adjacent road. The pit was closed for business and my lorry driver was told by the pit manager that the Environment Agency prevented them from clearing their surrounding ditches because such work might disturb any newts which may be there.

      Is newt protection an EU law/directive?

  11. s macdonald
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    I gather that anyone in receipt of EU largesse (such as a pension) can be deprived of it if caught criticising the institution itself.

    Since Lord Patten was a Euro commissioner I believe, is it likely he will be sympathetic to your letter, John?

  12. Leslie Singleton
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    Begging the question is what the BBC do best, closely followed by a total lack of understanding that correlation is not causation. Unfortunately in this country the study of science is going downhill. It’s a bit like the Quizzes one goes to which have, if one is lucky, a solitary question on the most elementary science the question setter can come up with (to show willing), which is then treated like some sort of joke amidst the more important stuff on so- called celebrities and suchlike.

  13. Barry Sheridan
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood,
    Twaddle! She at least has the right name to go with what she says. As for the BBC, anyone capable of thinking for themselves realises that this organisation pays no attention to the tenets of its Charter, so what is says has to be taken with a large amount of salt.

  14. Cllr. Robert Barnard
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    Yes, listening to some news programmes often reminds me of a journey through the Looking Glass but to a much more bizarre world than that envisaged by Lewis Carroll! Now we have some commentators complaining that the new Energy Bill is going to produce MORE power! Surely that is what we need?

    My recent article about wind power and the EU in our local paper:-

  15. Robert K
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    Let me congratulate you on two fronts: first, for listening to early morning Radio4, which I find unbearable (apart from the shipping bulletin); second, for writing to Lord Patten about it. Sloppy is exactly the right word for this kind of journalism.

  16. lifelogic
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    Another typical day of BBC output then. Every program seems to slip in a bit of global warming, EU bias or demands for more government action on this or that. Anyway, does the aptly named Alison Twaddle not think God is omnipotent or can he now only help us by giving us a few of these quack “climate” scientist? I wonder what Gods plans for the suns output is for the next 100 years perhaps she is amusing herself while still deciding upon it.

    I always find the religious slots hilarious, full of absurd logical contradictions and absurdly left wing. I also remember the BBC warning of summer drought just before the Gloucestershire experienced the worst floods on record in July 2007. The Lords and Common seem to be full of soothsayers who have been proved wrong with every prediction they have ever made yet still they push new drivel and the BBC still trust them.

    It is all about what people wish to believe as they feel good driving their Prius to the recycling centre with their copies of the Guardian and empty bottles of organic produce.

    You are writing to Lord Patten about it is it worth the ink! Alas Cameron’s choice is the very embodiment of the problem. Perhaps also ask him if the new DG’s contract also provides £450K should the new one fail after a few day service, and why he thought this was a good clause. Has he learn from his contractual mistake with the last one? Oh well its not his money is it.

    • Disaffected
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:15 am | Permalink

      Also, what was the process to select the new DG? Patten spent thousands (some consider wasted thousands of our money) on consultants last time around, claiming it was necessary to get the best person for the job. So why does the same not apply after his shambolic appointment and resignation of the last DG in position for 60 days or so?

      • Jerry
        Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

        @Disaffected: More commonalty known as dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn’t! In other words, just admit that this has nothing to do with the quality or otherwise of the new DG, you hate Lord Patten and anything he does you would find fault with…

        • lifelogic
          Posted November 29, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

          I don’t hate him, but it is quite clear given his lefty and pro EU view he should not hold any serious positions.

          Was there a real process for the new DG or was he a friend of a friend I wonder?

          • Jerry
            Posted November 30, 2012 at 9:30 am | Permalink

            @lifelogic: If he was on the right of the Tory party and anti EU would you say the same, that “he should not hold any serious positions”, if not, why not?…

  17. Alan
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood’s criticism of the BBC seems very biased to me.

    • Duyfken
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      What value is that comment, Alan? We do not know who you are or whether or not your opinion is worth noting, so if you think JR’s blogpost is biased, you could at least provide an explanation why you have such a view. There is no point in just saying you object or disagree or even support or agree with it, unless you have something evidential to contribute.

    • Robert Eve
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

      It seems spot on to me.

    • lifelogic
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      Just rational and objective.

    • outsider
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

      Mr Redwood habitually prefers a cool, logical approach to argument, whether one agrees with him or not. This post is plainly angry and I think that is itself eloquent testimony to the frustration of a reasonable person confronted by an establishment brick wall.

      • Alan
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:45 am | Permalink

        No, my post was ironic.

      • uanime5
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

        He seems angry because the BBC isn’t telling him what he wants to hear, not because the BBC is in any way wrong.

  18. David Jarman
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    Man made global warming is just about wealth transfer. Why do you think (named rich individual)pushes it so hard? Al Gore (lives well as a leading advocate of global warming theory). It’s a total farce that our politicians allow to the general public to be persecuted with. I mean, who in their research has taken in to account the galactic plane we are about to cross? Ok, it might not mean anything but who even looked at it, something that only happens every 13,000 years. Most of these “researches” dont even take in to account the cycles of the sun. Actually when you can be bothered to do some real research the earth goes thru a 130,000 year cycle where most of the planet is in an ice age with just a thin strip between the tropics that does not freeze over. In this 130,000 year cycle there is about 25,000 to 30,000 years when there is a relatively warm period which we are probably just at the end of. Most recent research actually shows there has been no increase in global temperatures for the last 16 years. But our dumb politicians are all too eager to listen to those that shout the loudest who are usually the most corrupt!

  19. Bob
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    All part of the Common Purpose agenda.

    Sign this e-petition if you would like to see an inquiry into this so called “charity”:

    ~ ~

    If my the link is censored out just google e-petition 42381

  20. Man in a Shed
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    Let us know how Lord Pattern dismisses your concerns.

    In the end the BBC just has to go.

  21. A Different Simon
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    John ,

    I love radio 3 and BBC4 is excellent too .

    One can forgive the BBC for being a propaganda machine during WW2 reporting complete fabrications of the success of Lancaster Bomber raids and downplaying the losses of crews . What passes for BBC “news” now is unwatchable .

    Unfortunately it really is time to stop the license fee and cut it loose .

    Perhaps the EU would like to fund the BBC in future ?

    • Jerry
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

      Unfortunately it really is time to stop the license fee and cut it loose .

      Funny how BSkyB call for many things but the one thing they have never called for is the scrapping of the TVL fee, there are probably two reasons for this; Firstly they (along with commercial TV, such as ITV) they know that adversing revenue is too thinly spread even now and thus would not be able to support the BBC as well – all would be loose out, not just the BBC. Secondly BSkyB know that their own subscription based business model would likely come under increased scrutiny, their method of packaging channels into groups would likely have to be changed.

      • David Price
        Posted December 1, 2012 at 10:19 am | Permalink

        But any changes would be the result of market pressure with customers deciding what they did or didn’t want. The result is more likely to be improved product whereas we have no choice with the BBC where pay and perks seem to be increasing while product quality is declining.

  22. Gary
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    Mentioning the temporary migration side of trade agreement (e.g. the ICT visa issue) is timely.

    Changes to the Immigration Rules announced last week (HC760) introduced the Contractual Service Supplier route under Tier 5 of the “Point Based System”. This allows workers under a contract for service to come and work in the UK for up to 6 months (if permitted under an international agreement). It looks like it is being put in place for the EU India bilateral trade agreement.

    One of the big issues is that the rule changes appear not to include any salary requirement, so you can effectively get a skilled professional worker for a minimum wage salary.

    Another side issue is that anyone working in the UK for up to 6 months is unlikely to become tax resident in the UK, so they won’t have to pay any income tax or NIC in the UK while working here.

    • A Different Simon
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

      Gary ,

      Provisions like this can be used or abused .

      Unfortunately experience tends to suggest they are abused .

      The 6 month limit looks like the Govt is doing everything it can to help Indian service companies and ensure employment taxes end up being paid in India rather than here .

      For the sake of argument let’s assume salary floors are in practice enforcable . Do you think salary requirement floors are the best way to stop abuse ?

  23. Jerry
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    Still no comment about the real issues that abound, come on John, what are your thoughts about the failure of the Secretary of State for DWP and his flag ship for getting the ‘Work Shy’ [1] off (a life on) benefits and in to work – no John, indeed, better stay on less problematic ground once again, yet another blog about the BBC and how appalling it is that it doesn’t tow a right wing agenda, if the BBC didn’t exist it would have to be invented to give politicians something to complain about when all the news and issues are going against them!

    As for “investigating Germany” and someone who mixes up “England” and “UK”, well it makes a change from investigating the USA and interviewing someone who mixes up “England” and the “UK”, funny how you have never found cause to mention that trait of the average person from the USA…

    Oh and as you mention Global warming, and considering that the DoECC is publishing its long waited Energy Bill, I would have though that there would have been plenty of substance there for a blog or even two, after all nothing like being topical.

    [1] more likely, simply jobless because there are not enough jobs being created in a weak economy that is being stifled by, if not triple dip recession, then a long period of uncertainty

    Reply: I will return to Energy once I have read the Bill. The debate yesterday on the Work programme was I thought inconclusive – we need to see the second year of the scheme, and see if all the people now in work survive the stated time to qualify as a success.

    • Jerry
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

      @Reply: “The debate yesterday on the Work programme was I thought inconclusive

      Surely then even more reason to expand on the issues, or did you actually mean the Official Statistics are inconclusive?

    • uanime5
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

      John why was evidence on the Work Programme inconclusive? It was mean to help million of people get jobs and the providers had a minimum target of getting 5% of the people sent to them into jobs that lasted at least 6 months. The result has been 2% of people sent on the Work Programme getting jobs that have lasted at least 6 months. It has clearly failed and waiting another year isn’t going to change this.

  24. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    I agree with every word – although I fear your letter is likely to fall on deaf ears as the pieces broadcast are entirely consistent with CP’s left wing view of the world.
    He’s a ‘Conservative’ in nothing but name, the perfect placeman politician for a Cameron that despises a large tract of his own party.

  25. Manof Kent
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    The other day Dan Hannan spoke in our town .

    I made two points ;

    A. 2015 will be the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo.This is 11 miles from Brussels where the modern Code Napoleon is administered.
    Would it not be appropriate to have the in/out referendum in that year ,preferably in June ?

    B. In last year’s BBC accounts the balance sheet shows a loan of £50m from the EIB
    ‘part of the EU family’ requiring a favourable acknowledgement.
    It has now been repaid ,but what is happening currently?
    DH has put down a series of questions in the EU Parlt.

  26. Chris
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Christopher Booker has dealt with this very succinctly in his column in the Telegraph:
    Also, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (promoting science based and rigorous debate to challenge global warming agenda) has covered this bias of the BBC, with severe criticism of the 2006 meeting of “scientific experts” which determined the global warming promotion/bias that the BBC apparently adopted from that point onwards.

  27. Denis Cooper
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    As NickW points out the BBC is legally bound to obey the terms of its Charter; it has repeatedly failed to do so for decades now, and surely that removes the only possible justification for it being funded through a licence fee levied on all viewers whether or not they choose to watch any of its output?

    It’s too early to say that a change of Director-General has changed nothing about the BBC’s institutional biases, but the new man should openly admit that it has not been complying with its Charter and take steps to correct that.

    Unfortunately this is another of those cases where there is the theoretical possibility of bringing a legal action to force compliance with the law, but with literally billions of pounds of licence payers’ money at its disposal the costs of fighting the BBC in court would quickly become prohibitive except for very wealthy individuals or a well-organised and well-funded group.

    • Jerry
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

      @Denis Cooper: I find it very funny who both the left and right of British politics, pro-AGW and anti-AGW, complain that the BBC is being biased against their views and opinion, often at the same time and subject!…

      Bias is in the eyes of the beholder, one man’s bias is another’s truth and all that…

      • APL
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

        Jerry: “pro-AGW and anti-AGW .. ”

        Which does not identify the left or right in British politics.

        Jerry: “complain that the BBC is being biased against their views and opinion,”

        Which does not imply either that the BBC isn’t biased one way or the other on disparate views of the political spectrum, NOR that the BBC is impartial simply because it annoys two different factions.

        • APL
          Posted November 30, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

          APL: “Which does not identify the left or right in British politics.”

          Many of the Tory party voted in favor of the Climate change bill.

          Oh! Wait a minute.

        • Jerry
          Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

          @APL: My point, as I’m sure you actually understood, was that if any organisation is being accused of bias from both opposing positions at the same time it is surely a suggestion that the organisation isn’t being biased one jot!

          • APL
            Posted December 2, 2012 at 12:04 am | Permalink

            Jerry: “My point, as I’m sure you actually understood, ”

            I understood your point and disagreed with it.

          • Jonathan R
            Posted December 3, 2012 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

            “My point, as I’m sure you actually understood, was that if any organisation is being accused of bias from both opposing positions at the same time it is surely a suggestion that the organisation isn’t being biased one jot!”

            Please give me the breakdown of complaints by “the left” and “the right” on the BBCs output. It seems that you have been given information that others cannot get.

            you cannot prove your assertion that the BBC receive equal complaints from both sides of the political divide then please have the common decency to put in a caveat such as “I have heard on a BBC programme that ..” or “I have no evidence of what I am saying but I did , I think hear this sometime.., but I cannot tell you when”

            I presume that you belief in the “unbiasness” of the BBC is the reason for your blind faith in a theory that has more holes in than a Swiss cheese.

      • Edward
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

        I’ve never of heard any complaints about bias by those who are pro AGM, pro EU, pro big state spending, or pro immigration.

        Perhaps they are generally satisfied with the output of the BBC?
        Or have I missed something?

  28. Richard1
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    Good show. Have you – or other bloggers – noticed the BBC’s ‘Why Poverty’ season? An episode was broadcast on Monday – a highly tendentious political polemic by a left-wing American film maker, the substance of which was: Messrs Romney and Ryan are baddies who want to impoverish the poor; the poor are poor because the rich have taken their money; the rich have forced politicians to sign laws enabling them to become richer: only unions protect the living standards of the poor and the rich are conspiring to get rid of them; the Tea Party in the US isn’t really a popular movement, just the creation of a few billionaires. Special opprobrium (with an exceptionally slanted report) was heaped on the Republican Governor of Wisconsin who stood up to the bullying and restrictive practices of unions; etc etc. No attempt was made to present alternative views coherently.

    I don’t object to left-wing polemicists making films, nor to seeing them if I subscribe to GuardianTV when + if it exists. But I do object to having it thrust down my throat having paid my BBC poll tax – and so being forced to subsidise statist propaganda. In order to comply with its charter requiring balance, the BBC should now be required to run a series of right-wing / free market polemical films under a ‘season’ along the lines of ‘How Prosperity?’. A screening of ‘Britain’s Trillion Pound Horror Story’ by Martin Durkin might be a good start. An updated versioin of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ could be good 2nd episode.

    • uanime5
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

      Given that the rich have been getting richer, unions rather than politicians are the ones campaigning for employee rights, and the Tea Party has been in decline for some time it seems that the problem isn’t bias but that you don’t like it when people don’t tell you what you want to hear.

      • Richard1
        Posted December 1, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

        The triumph of the last 30 years is the collapse of communism and of socialism as an intellectual idea. 3bn people have been lifted out of poverty as a result. True some people have become enormously rich also. That’s what happens in market economies. Was China better off under Mao when there were no rich but much more equality? What I object to is not watching left wing polemical films, but being forced to pay to do so. If the BBC are to screen such polemics they ought, to comply with their charter, to screen films with the other perspective.

    • sm
      Posted December 1, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

      One of the startling points made in the documentary if i recollect correctly was that 400 or people owned about 50% of US wealth! That was not the dream i suspect of the forefathers.

  29. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    Perhaps the recent Savile revelations will have opened people’s eyes to the fact that the BBC is not the trustworthy objective public service broadcaster they have been led to believe. It is failing regularly in its requirement to impartiality and if complaints are made, even about entertainment programmes, they are brushed aside with a reply telling you that they note your concern but they know best! I wonder which of his minions Patten will enlist to reply to your letter, assuming he ever reads it? Nothing will change I fear. It is run by people who are arrogant and contemptuous of the views of those whose money they take under statute. It should be sold off and they should stop pretending that it is this wonderful unbiased institution; it proves daily that it is not.

    • uanime5
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

      Given that every other media company failed to realise what Savile was doing I don’t see why only the BBC should be punished for it.

      • Edward
        Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

        Given that the BBC employed him a a major prime time star for nearly all his career I think that maybe this is a clue for you.

  30. Peter Stroud
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    Including a ‘warmist’ on Thought for Today is sensible. Warmists treat the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis as a religion. The fact that none of the computer models used to forecast future climate have been verified. (No one really knows if the feedback mechanism is really positive, as assumed, or not.) In fact their predictions have been shown to be consistently wrong. But no matter ‘the cause’ is all that matters: as the contents of many of the leaked Climategate emails showed.

    There must be quite a few sceptical MPs in the Conservative camp and a few on the Labour side. Perhaps it is time for them to get together and campaign for a really independent, tax payer funded programme of research. But certainly not at the UEA.

    • Adam5x5
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

      Has anyone even determined the direction of the causal relationship?
      I.e. does higher CO2 give higher temps or does higher temps give higher CO2?

      • APL
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

        Adam5x5: “I.e. does higher CO2 give higher temps or does higher temps give higher CO2?”

        There is some indications that the increase in CO2 lags the cyclical increase in temperature by something in the order of eight hundred years.

      • uanime5
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

        There is a correlation between increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and increased global temperatures. CO2 has also been proven to raise the global temperature. So higher CO2 does give higher temperatures.

        If you want to try and show that “higher temps give higher CO2” you’ll need to explain why higher temperatures would make human produce large amounts of CO2.

        • Edward
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

          And uni, you need to explain why CO2 rises and temperature rises in previous millenia did not always occurr in the same way they have done in the 20th century.

        • APL
          Posted December 2, 2012 at 12:05 am | Permalink

          unamie5: “correlation”

          As you have been informed numerous times, correlation does not equal causation.

  31. oldtimer
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    This sounds par for the course. I put the recent flurry of alarmist stories about the climate down to the UN sponsored Doha conference/talking shop now taking place. It is part of the conditioning process, what the spinners call “framing the debate”. It first saw the light of day in the Futerra publication “The Rules of the Game”, funded by the government with taxpayers money in 2005. This was followed in 2006 by the IPPR`s “Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story and can we do it better.” Its conclusions and recommendations included this sinister advice:
    “Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement. To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.”

    Note the references to `facts`. As anyone who has taken the trouble to read the scientific sections of the IPPC reports will know, they are not reporting `facts` but hypotheses about which the scientists were very uncertain. Moreover $billions have been spent world wide trying to improve their comprehension of what is a chaotic, non linear system. Such systems have has no chance whatsoever of being understood by man-made models. What we are being fed is government sponsored, taxpayer funded spin.

    That communication model remains in place today. It infects and corrupts government and BBC communications. It also infects and corrupts the science – all scientists seeking research grants (their lifeblood) will be mindful of rule 2 in Rules of the Game:
    “2. Forget the climate change detractors
    Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate change, but how we should deal with climate change.”
    Consequently there is no UK research grant money for a sceptical scientist, only for those who embrace the decreed orthodoxy.

    There was a small chink of light on Sky News this am when they interviewed a Dr Ball on the Energy Bill. He pointed out, in robust terms, that the renewable energy schemes were a waste of money. Remarkably he was aked: “Are we being spun?” “Yes” was the reply.

    Interestingly, even one adherent of the CAGW hypothesis (Professor Steve Rayner of Oxford University) acknowledges that what he calls “the architecture of Kyoto” and of the failed Copenhagen treaty was and remains doomed, that wind power is too expensive and that cap and trade will not work. And he, it should be noted, was a lead author for IPCC 3rd and 4th assessment reports. He now advocates, among other things, mitigation (with some worthwhile ideas) but is also committed to geoengineering through the grant funded Oxford Geoengineering Programme. An audio file of his talk can be found here (if you have an hour to spare):

    Footnote: The Oxford Geoengineering Programme, of which Professor Rayner is a co-director, has developed five principle to guide future work. Principle #3 states:
    ◦Principle 3: Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results

    There should be complete disclosure of research plans and open publication of results in order to facilitate better understanding of the risks and to reassure the public as to the integrity of the process. It is essential that the results of all research, including negative results, be made publicly available.”
    It would have been a good idea if that principle had applied to the climate science research behind the IPCC reports.

  32. English Pensioner
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    I accept that there is a possibility that climate change might be taking place, after all it has been changing for millions of years, there is no reason that it should stop now.
    What I have never seen is acceptable proof that it is man-made or that any actions by mankind can stop it. When you consider the amount of CO2 pushed into the atmosphere when just a single volcano erupts, the amount that man gives out is trivial in the extreme.

    As for the BBC, well I’ve more or less given up watching or listening to it. The occasional drama (and some of these put out decidedly left wing propaganda) and that’s my lot. Far better to read the news on the internet; if you want news from most European countries, you can usually find an English version of one of their national newspapers on-line.

  33. waramess
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    The reason they continue to get away with this is they are not constrained by norms of private enterprise: everybody with a receiver is bound to pay, like it or not.

    It is hard to see why the politicians are guiled into believing this is a good thing but, until they see through the fraud, the two issues above and the pro socialist bias will be something we might just as well live with.

  34. rick hamilton
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    Expats might agree with my judgement that BBC World TV is very adept at pushing its own agenda, to the extent of asking one of its own editors to comment to the newsreader on the resignation of the DG instead of an outsider. I really do want to hear the facts of the news without being coloured by BBC’s institutional leftie bias or the personal opinions of their staff.
    Their presenter Mishal Husain was almost apoplectic when she couldn’t get a spokesman for the Jerusalem Post to admit how awful it was that large numbers of Palestinians had been killed in the recent exchange of fire but only a few Israelis. (Is this pro Palestinian bias?)

    • Bob
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

      @rick hamilton
      The Balen Report was commissioned to investigate allegations of anti Israel bias, but the BBC have spent £300,000 on legal fees to prevent us from seeing the contents of the report under the Freedom of Information Act.

      They covered for their celebrity pedophiles very effectively, now what else could they be hiding?

      Twenty Eight Gate proves that the BBC are not interested in the truth, just propaganda.

      I hope Mr Redwood publishes Lord Pattens response – I could do with a laugh!

      • uanime5
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

        Given that the Supreme Court has stated that the BBC is not bound by FOI requests, as stated in the FOI act, expect Lord Pattern’s response to be similar.

        • Lindsay McDougall
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:22 am | Permalink

          On what grounds did the Supreme Court come to this absurd conclusion?

  35. Neil Craig
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    The 28gate scandal, where the BBC symposium of the 28 “leading scientists” giving the “best scientific advice” was proven, in fact no such thing. It was simply a meeting with overwhelmingly non-scientific renewable salesmen, government paid warming hacktivists & international “aid” agents (it was organised by an environmental and international aid lobbyist “charity”). Since people from across the BBC, even the head of comedy, were present there can be no question that the entire BBC organisation knew that the claim it was (suspect-ed)
    The BBC is a (adjectives left out) propaganda organisation willing to (mislead and select-ed) whatsoever in the cause of Big Government totalitarianism. This is not, indeed cannot, by definition, be denied by any informed and honest observer

  36. Peter Geany
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    John. Good luck with your letter to Lord Patten. My impression is he is as much the problem as anything and the new Director General appointment is another huge mistake, with yet another left wing anti conservative running the BBC. His output when in charge of news was appallingly one sided.

    On the matter of climate change you make excellent points about the actual BBC commentary and luck of factual support for the assertions. I think what you are saying in your diplomatic way is there is no factual support for these assertions. That there is no factual support is accepted by most scientists, interested commentators and individuals like me who have been following AGW for many years. Lord Patten must also accept this.

    But the BBC should be telling us that the real scientific debate has moved on from the juvenile “every storm or drought or flood is caused by human activity” to testing the green house theory. This theory is many years old and has been accepted at face value without being tested. No one has yet demonstrated that it indeed exists, and no one has explained why in the past when CO2 was 10 times or 100 times or indeed a 1000 time todays concentration the earth didn’t boil up. Indeed the earth’s atmosphere was mostly CO2 in the beginning and if the green house theory was valid water would never have condensed and life started.

    I hope that in your letter to lord Patten you can ask him why when the debate has moved on the BBC continues as if stuck in a time warp. Our licence fee is becoming worthless to us if even factual scientific programing cannot be trusted to inform the public but is used as just another propaganda tool. How are we to trust any BBC output when we know they are deliberately falsifying output on climate matters? The issues at the BBC are ones of trust and it runs much deeper than Savile or the News Night Debacle.

    • uanime5
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

      Given that every reputable scientific body agrees that climate change is real it’s clear that there is factual support for climate change. The problem is cranks who believe that their ideology is somehow superior to the science.

      • Lindsay McDougall
        Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:24 am | Permalink

        The climate change researchers who bent their evidence and conclusions so that they could get funds for additional research haven’t done your cause any favours.

    • Edward
      Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

      Peter “cranks is uni’s term for anyone who hold views different to his.

  37. David John Wilson
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    It is of course to be expected that someone like you who has highly biased views against the facts of global warming and against UK participation in the EU would hear these broadcasts with a jaundiced ear. The fact that you disagree with a couple of specific broadcasts does not justify making complaints to the BBC about what after all were the views of individual broadcasters.

    How often do you hear similar broadcasts putting forward equally biased views with which you agree? Do you complain in the same way about these?

    • Edward
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

      You say “How often do you hear similar broadcasts putting forward equally biased views with which you agree”
      Well not very often I would say and especially not on the BBC.
      I had a think and apart from a programme called the Great Global Warming Scandal on Channel 4, a documentary which followed Lord Moncton around and the odd interview with Lord Lawson I could not come up with any!

    • forthurst
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      “It is of course to be expected that someone like you who has highly biased views against the facts of global warming”

      What facts? That the algorithms used to construct the computer models which have so conspicuously failed in their predictions were based neither in scientific theory nor fact, in other words, were deliberately and entirely fraudulent?

      Facts are not right or left, they are true or false. It is scandalous that the BBC treats controversial issues as though they had been settled, puportedly except in the minds of residual ‘deniers’ who can be ignored because they are all rightwing nutters. The nutters are people who believe what they are told without demanding supporting evidence. The BBC is a national disgrace.

      • David John Wilson
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

        At the end of the 20th century, before global warming became a popular argument, I was working with scientists who were becoming increasing worried about the problem. This was not based on models designed to prove or disprove the facts but as a result of work that they were doing in other areas. Despite all the arguments they are still extremely concerned about the problem.

        • Lindsay McDougall
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:28 am | Permalink

          In that case, why are none of them campaigning for zero world population growth, the only sure fire way to ensure that other measures are effective? Are they afraid of the power of bigoted, backward organised religion, in the way that our politicians are?

    • oldtimer
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

      What are advanced as “facts” re CAGW are not facts but hypotheses. There has been a sustained campaign over several years to supress discussion of these issues in the UK – and it has been remarkably successful too.

      • uanime5
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

        Care to explain why all scientific evidence conducted by the Government has shown that climate change is real.

        • oldtimer
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 10:03 am | Permalink

          Your choice of the word “climate change” is revealing. It used to be “global warming”. Before that it was CAGW (“catastrophic anthropgenic global warming”). Such changes have been necessary to accommodate the fact that the IPCC predictions of CAGW have not been realised.

          It has not demonstrated that CAGW is real – it remains an hypothesis. The last Labour government sought to suppress scientific views and research contrary to the CAGW hypothesis and was very successful in doing so. It has spent, and continues to spend enormous sums in an attempt to demonstrate the hypothesis. So far it has failed.

          The reality is that our comprehension of the many complex interactions of what influences the climate is inadequate to make the predictions claimed by the IPCC. Indeed even the IPCC scientists admit the uncertainties – they just do not appear in the Summaries for Policy makers.

    • Graham
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

      Since you like the BBC so much can you pay my poll tax as well please because I think it’s rubbish and being surpassed by RT for independent reporting [and they are state sponsored as well!!]

    • Bob
      Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

      @David John Wilson
      ” the facts of global warming”?

      facts like there has been no increase in global temperatures for over ten years?
      (despite the best efforts of the scientific community to “hide the decline”)

      • David John Wilson
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

        As evidenced by the increasing rate of the reduction of the polar ice caps and the rise in sea levels.

        It is almost impossible to measure global temperatures all we can do is look at the effects which are many and obvious. Individual effects will of course be challenged by those wanting to disprove them, but there are so many that they cannot be ignored.

        • oldtimer
          Posted November 30, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

          The ice cap is increasing in Antarctica. Do keep up!

        • Nick Cartwright
          Posted November 30, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

          which pole, north or south? I think if you look South you’ll be surprised.

        • APL
          Posted December 2, 2012 at 12:17 am | Permalink

          David John Wilson: “As evidenced by the increasing rate of the reduction of the polar ice caps and the rise in sea levels.”

          The whole of the North polar ice cap could melt and there would be no appreciable rise in sea level. Solid H2O being a solid that is less dense than it’s liquid form. As you probably know Ice floats on liquid water and in the case of the North Polar Ice cap which is entirely floating has already displaced its own mass in the ocean.

  38. Richard Jenkins
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Redwood – you are quite right to raise the matter of BBC bias and sloppy journalism with Lord Patten. I am glad that you are doing so. But the probability of you receiving a meaningful reply is zero, as I am sure you already know.

    • APL
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

      Richard Jenkins: “But the probability of you receiving a meaningful reply is zero, as I am sure you already know.”

      Not least because Patten is in the pay of the EU, and he answers to them not the UK Parliament.

  39. Amanda
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Thank you John for writing to the Chairman of the BBC Trust, who is supposed to be there to represent us, and see fair play and balance.

    By the way, I thought his performance at the select committee in answering Philip Davies’ questions showed an arrogance that was beyone belief. I have no faith that this person represents my, or my family, or my friend’s interests. Quite the opposite, and so I would like him replaced with someone we all can have confidence in.

  40. RB
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Good for you John. Im glad you are writing to Lord Patten. At least you have some weight in that regard.

    He will of course be buried under sacks of mail about 28gate, Entwhistle, Savile, tax avoidance at the BBC, etc. so might not get round to answering you anytime soon.

    The reality is starting to show clearly at last. The fact is that even if you take the IPCC as the benchmark on the science the BBC have been pedalling a position that goes way beyond the IPCC in “warmism” and in terms of the science and any alleged catastrophe and of course the issue of uncertainty is never ever mentioned. It has been entirely captured by green activist organisations and (as well as a small group of now “rogue” climate scientists I could mention) they daily make announcements that are not even supported by science, let alone “mainstream” science – i.e extreme and fantastic opinions and downright lies. In reality the BBC has been pumping an extreme view on this subject into our homes and around the world for years and years. They are just as much deniers as the deniers.

    As I have been saying for years, it is the lazy “story” creating media more than climate science that is responsible for the appaling state we are in now in relation to proper informed climate science discussion. The newspapers are just as bad but the BBC’s reach is orders of magnitude wider and given its obligations this is one of the biggest scandals that the BBC has yet to answer for.

    On the EU, again, I am not surprised. I honestly feel that the BBC is beyond fixing.

    • uanime5
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

      The only one stating “extreme and fantastic opinions and downright lies” is you. Every respectable scientific body has shown that climate change is real, which is why denier like you are unable to produce any evidence to back up your own claims.

      • APL
        Posted December 2, 2012 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

        uanime5: “Every respectable scientific body has shown that climate change is real, ”

        Climate change is real, undoubtedly so. The evidence for and history of climate change is laid down in the rocks and strata under our very feet.

        Climate change has nearly no relationship with so called anthropogenic global warming, which is a cock and bull fairy tale dreamed up by NGOs, University climate studies departments (paid for by the government) to create a pretext for higher taxes on energy.

      • Jonathan R
        Posted December 3, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

        ” Every respectable scientific body has shown that climate change is real”
        For goodness sake will you stop this nonsense – you really haven’t a clue of the terminology.
        Everyone, and I mean everyone knows that climate change is real. There is no dispute. It is the AGW theory that is questioned. Either you know this but like to stick to the term “climate change” to mislead or you really do not know what you are talking about. I cannot think which is worse.

  41. Bickers
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    Today had Tim Yeo on last week, promoting the ‘renewables’ agenda as part of the new government’s ‘new’ energy policy announcement. At no point did the the programme inform the listener that Yeo (has declared interests in) ‘renewables’ companies. This is another example of sloppy/biased journalism from the BBC.

    (disagrees with Mr Yeo’s mixture of activities)

  42. Draughtsman
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Well so far as climate change is concerned you might thank God for the ‘scientists’ who raise alarms over planetary thermageddon based on computer models programmed with unverified assumptions about the interaction of CO2 and water vapour, or you can take heed of scientists like Habibullo Abdussamatov in Russia and many in the US and elsewhere who study the history of oceanic and solar cycles and their relationship with the Earth’s climate. Their studies suggest that far from a catastrophic warming, the planet is due to undergo radical cooling leading to a climate such as that experienced during the Dalton or perhaps even Maunder minima. Such a cooling, should it occur, would have a serious and immediate impact on human wellbeing and find a world totally unprepared, sold as it is on the AGW theory.
    To deny scientists like these the opportunity to present their findings in the main broadcast media because a group of pro warming activists, propagandists and green groups have closed their minds to any other scenario than AGW is a disgrace and an affront to civilised discourse and scientific argument.

  43. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    Good luck. Lord Patten may have some responsibility for a lot of the ‘sloppiness’. I wonder what questions he asked of the man appointed to replace George Entwistle. The BBC is not independent of government – who appoints members of the BBC Trust? It’s just the usual smoke and mirrors to ensure that trendy left wing opinion is entrenched.

  44. toby hayes
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    What about Newsnights piece on press regulation last night? It ran a twenty minute short film on the horrors inflicted by the media on the parents of a murder victim. You could only come away with one view, that the press are evil and need to be vociferously (read legislate) controlled.

    Then it cut to the panel where it had a ‘hacked off’ spokesman up against a tabloid editor.

    Where was the balanced respone about freedom of speech from a respected pillar of society?

    No, the BBC offered up a tabloid editor to defend the indefensible, who try as he might, would never be able to counter the pious sanctimony of the hacked off crew.

    The whole piece was rigged to make statutory legislation seem a reasonable and worthy thing to do. Shame on the BBC.

    • uanime5
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

      Given that the BBC will be bound by this regulation they have ever right to decide whether to support it or not.

      • Edward
        Posted December 2, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

        As usual uni, you demonstrate a compete misunderstanding of the role of the BBC.
        It is legally required by its charter to remain impartial and independent.

        You say “they have every right to decide whether to support it or not” and you are totally wrong as this would mean the BBC would be in breach of its charter.

  45. Bernard Juby
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    “I am writing to Lord Patten about it.”
    Please keep us posted.

  46. Alan
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Oh dear. I’m afraid when it comes to the scientific community, the consensus is clear and overwhelming: the earth is warming, and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. A recent study of 13950 peer-reviewed articles on climate science, between the years 1991 and 2012, identified just 24 that reject global warming (ref:

    And yet you use language like: “an uncritical advert for global warming theory, with of course no balance or questions allowed.” I expect this kind of woolly-headed, dogmatic thinking from the likes of James Delingpole and Christopher Booker, but not from my MP.

    And mentioning the “past controversies” of the East Anglia University climate change department is at best lazy, at worst willfully disingenuous, when you likely know full-well they were completely exonerated: eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

    When it comes to matters of science, I’ll always take my lead from peer-reviewed research rather than rants in the right-wing press.

    • A Different Simon
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

      They can have form any consensus they want but the acid test will be empirical data .

      One of the problems with subjecting climate change hypothesis to a sanity test is the difficulty in finding trustworthy answers to the following two questions :-

      – What proportion of overall CO2 emissions is mankind is responsible for by burning coal , oil and gas from underground ?
      (CO2 released from the sea can be excluded) .

      – What proportion of overall methane emissions is mankind is responsible for due to coal mining and leaks during oil and gas extraction ?

      If the answer in both cases really is around 2.5% , then it seems implausible that mankind is having a significant effect on the climate as that would just result in increased plant growth wouldn’t it ?
      Even the most die-hard climate change proponent would surely have to question whether there was some other cause .
      As I say , I am finding difficulty getting trustworthy answers to those questions .

      • uanime5
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

        Consensuses are formed based on the empirical data, so they’ve already passed your acid test.

        Even if humanity’s effect is a 2.5% increase every year for over a century if the planet cannot convert the extra CO2 into something else it will continue to remain in the atmosphere and increase the average global temperature. For example if you’re filling a tank with water using one pump and extracting water with another if you keep increasing the amount of water going into the tank this tank will eventually be unable to contain the water and the water will overflow.

        Also extra CO2 is only good for plants if they don’t have enough CO2. If they currently have enough CO2 then more CO2 provides them with no benefits. Just like giving plants extra water doesn’t result in extra growth if they have enough water.

    • Edward
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      Well if there is that many papers and they are peer reviewed then thats it, we are all doomed.
      peer reviewed…that lovelycosy consensus, group think process where ambitious young scientists write papers which are then read by their more senior colleagues.
      Not much of a surprise that most follow the party line.

      And 8 coats of whitewash for East Anglia University (formerly Norwich FE college) and their strange e mails, which anyone can read and make their own minds up about , is still a whitewash.

      • uanime5
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

        Just because you refuse to accept the evidence and come up with conspiracy theories which involve every scientist in every country on the planet doesn’t make their findings wrong. It just shows how out of touch you are.

        • Edward
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

          I read those e mails from East Anglia University and they are quite clear.
          You refuse to open your eyes and look at any scientists who have a different view to the concensus.
          Try reading Blomborg for example. I suppose he is a crank
          Try watching the Al Gore film and see how his dire predictions are not coming true.
          Why are isalnds in his film not under water yet
          Where is the acceleration of global temperatures form 2000 onwards he predicted
          Out of touch, perhaps, but not blind nor deaf like you.
          For me its not a religion, it is a science and the predictions are not coming true.

          • Edward
            Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

            Typo sorry, should read

            Bjorn Lomborg

      • Alan
        Posted December 3, 2012 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

        Your sneering attitude to the process of peer-review is quite telling. I look forward to you posting an improved process for ensuring the honesty of scientific research; maybe papers should be submitted to the copy editors of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph for approval?

  47. pipesmoker
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    John Daly spent a lot of time researching the so called global warming subject during his lifetime, he sadly died in 2004, but his work on the site which is still maintained is worth looking at.

    As for the BBC I gave up listening to the tripe they dish up on that and other subjects for domectic consumption long ago.

  48. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink


    Minister Nick Boles thinks that 11% or 12% of the UK should be developed rather than the current 9% in order to provide more houses, an increase roughly twice the size of Greater London. While an increase in housing supply to bring down house prices is a good thing, I have a few questions for Mr Boles.

    Are the additional houses needed for the current population or a forecast increase in it?
    When did the electorate endorse the immigration policy of this government and its predecessor?
    Does he agree that slowing down climate change would be a lot easier if there was zero population growth in the world?
    What does his government propose to do about high birth rates in poor countries that produce population for export, actively encouraged by organised religion?
    Does he agree that housing demand should be determined by market forces, and that social (subsidised) housing is not required by markets?
    Is he obsessed with home ownership or would he be happy with an increase in the supply of private housing for rent in London, where rents are through the roof?
    Has he factored in shrinking high streets and the possibility of replacing some commercial property by housing?
    Will the Royal Family, Tory grandees like Lord Hestletine and champagne socialists be required to release land from their country estates?

    I only ask because I want to know.

  49. James Matthews
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Chris Patten is a notorious Europhiliac, perhaps that is why he got the BBC Chair. Good luck with your complaint, you will need it.

  50. fkc
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Thank you John for comments on the BBC. More power to your elbow. Its about time
    the bias of the BBC is exposed and the EU content shown up . They are clearly funded by the EU by how much may we ask?

  51. linda kaucher
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    Spot on in your assessment of the Today report on EU trade agreements.

    I gave an interview on this and provided very full information of how the EU is selling out people in the UK, not least with the effectively permanent Mode 4 trade concessions allowing for temporary cheap labour to be brought in. Temporary labour actually means more intense pressure on resident workers.

    Very little of the factual information I provided was used, and as you say, a very pro-EU impression was created overall.

    What did reporter Hugh Pym expect the EU Trade Commissioner to say??

    Pym allowed both the UK government and the EU Trade Commissioner to lie outright.

    According to the quotes, they both assert that the new commitments will be for multinational companies to bring in workers.

    In fact the UK already has trade commitments allowing ‘Intracorporate Transferees’ (ICTs) to be brought in by transnational corporations.

    The single demand that India is making in the EU/India Free Trade Agreement is for any Indian firm (definitively not transnationals) to be able to supply temporary labour into the EU, though effectively primarily into the UK. This Mode 4 category is called Contractual Service Suppliers and will of course be in addition to existing ICT commitments.

    Neither of the relevant Points Based System categories has any numerical limits. Hugh Pym seems to have magicked up a phoney figure, perhaps taken from an old Daily Mail article.

    He then skips over the fact that we are being lined up for a US/EU Free Trade Agreement, a world changer that has already seen the NHS ‘harmonised’ in preparation for US health investors.

    Is this really the best standard of reporting we can expect for our license fee?

  52. Ronald Rumley
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Well done Mr Redwood – about time.
    When can we have a choice of BBC or not?
    Al jazeera seem to do better.

  53. Kenneth
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    In your letter to Lord Patten I hope you can also include the numerous references to public spending cuts on the BBC when the opposite is true.

    I have seen and heard (and documented) plenty of examples.

    If the BBC itself repeats this untruth and allows its studio guests to do the same unchallenged, surely many people – perhaps the majority of people – will believe this to be true.

    As this is not a matter of opinion but a product of fact and arithmetic, all I am asking for is the BBC to tell the truth.

  54. David Saunders
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    The volume of comments in support of JR shows he represents the thoughts of many of us. If the BBC did not exist, no one would bother to invent it in its present form.

    • uanime5
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

      If the BBC didn’t exist right wing cranks would find some other organisation they could criticise for not telling them want they want to hear.

      • Edward
        Posted December 2, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

        Rather like you left wing cranks constantly mock the Daily Mail and The Telegraph uni, but believe all you are fed by The Guardian

  55. The PrangWizard
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    Am still in Arizona. I have watched NBC, ABC, CNN and Fox. If only we had an equivalent of Fox News in England. Maybe someone could transform Sky.
    It is a refreshing alternative to the propaganda, stodge and partiality of the BBC which I’m going to hate with an even greater passion when I get back. They cover subjects and opinions which are effectively banned by the BBC.
    I’ve commented many times that BBC News and Current Affairs and the Trust must be disolved and replaced with new broadcasters – ‘A Station for every Nation’ if that’s what each nation wishes; it is incapable of reform which this clearly proves. I’ve wondered many times who will be the first person to throw the first brick through the first window to achieve some change.
    Good luck with your letter to the odiously oily (and partial) Patten. No doubt he will think you very impertinent and I believe one MP recently asked him if he could please stop being so patronising. His resignation must be obtained somewhow.

    • uanime5
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

      Fox News is the propaganda division of the Republican party and only appeals to right wing nuts. It is neither impartial nor free of bias, which is why so few Americans watch it and prefer the BBC.

      • APL
        Posted December 2, 2012 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

        uanime5: “which is why so few Americans watch it and prefer the BBC.”

        You could probably factor into many Americans reasons for preferring the BBC, they don’t have to pay for it.

    • Bazman
      Posted December 1, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      It is a refreshing alternative to the propaganda? LOL!

  56. Julian Hooper
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    The BBC and others, including, I fear, “The Times”, make a common mistake in that they seem to confuse the two terms Global Warming and Climate Change. It seems very difficult to be able to prove whether or not Global Warming is taking place but it must be very clear that the climate is changing. Geologists have shown that this has been been happening for hundreds of millions of years and there seems little cchance that it is suddenly going to stop now, even if we all turn a very bright shade of green. There are better things to do with our money that trying to cut our CO2 output.

    • A Different Simon
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

      Exactly ,

      The “denialists” are those people who deny the possibility that the major influences on the climate could be natural and beyond the control of human beings .

      If the climate is changing dramatically and the causes are outside mans control then the money should be spent on trying to adapt to changes in the climate rather than fighting nature .

      Stopping slash burning of forests to replace them with biofuel crops and preventing the spread of deserts would not be a bad idea either with all sides of the AGW debate could surely agree on .

      I don’t deny the possibility that mankind could be significantly influencing the climate but I don’t believe that mankind’s supposed contribution of 2.5% of all CO2 emissions could be responsible .

      If mankind was responsible of say 40% of CO2 emissions then that might be plausible but not 2.5% .

  57. Alte Fritz
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Foolish, trivial, or idle talk or chatter.

    Off subject, but same theme, this week’s Panorama (How to dodge tax) was a masterpiece in subliminal propaganda. Show a collection of people who appear to be prepared to assist money laundering and tax evasion and impliedly equate that with tax avoidance.

    • APL
      Posted December 2, 2012 at 9:24 am | Permalink

      Alte Fritz: ” money laundering and tax evasion and impliedly equate that with tax avoidance.”

      Lie and decieve, it’s what the BBC does best. It is all down to the unique way they can extort their income.

  58. Glenn Vaughan
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink


    Somewhere in your letter, please ask Lord Patten for the date of his departure from the BBC.

  59. Atlas
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Well, I suppose that Patten might do something about the bias – ratchet it up most likely.

  60. Credible
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    John, you say
    “She was not asked to produce any evidence, not asked how she could predict the average but not the individual years that make it up, not asked why they have not forecast recent year’s weather with any success and not asked to explain why CO2 rather than water vapour, sun variation, wind and cloud patterns is seen as the crucial sole variable.”

    If I was to say that Manchester Utd or Manchester City will win the Premier League, it would not be controversial. If I was to say that the club with a new owner and more money to buy players is more likely to finish ahead of the previously better club that isgoing into debt, that would not be contoversial either. Now if I tried to predict the exact score betwen two of these teams next week I’d probably get it wrong. Just because I might not do very well at individual scores, does not mean that predictions for end of season positions have to be wrong. That is the difference between weather and climate forecasts. To have confidence in the prediction that the climate will get warmer is entirely reasonable. However, I do agree that trying to attribute a particular storm to global warming is nonsense.

    I might also ask the question how you are so knowledgable about all of these atmospheric processes you mention. Have you been doing a physics degree and a bit of calculus in your spare time? Seems someone else has to provide evidence (fair enough) but you don’t.

  61. David Langley
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    Good luck with the letter to Lord Patten, it will wind up in the round tray no doubt judging by his track record. I mentioned to you some time ago that the BBC should be prevented from talking about the EU without a safety net. The average presenter has no idea what they are talking about but appear glad to be getting a wage to drivel. This extends to some very experienced presenters who think age means an acquisition of knowledge by seniority. I admit that a lot of serious reading backed up with more serious reading has given me a reasonable understanding which infuriates me when listening or watching these pathetic people pontificating on a subject so serious.
    We should issue a writ to the BBC for misleading the public about this topic.

  62. Jon
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    I wish you luck with that letter, it would not be a party political issue either.

    I feel there is an attitude problem at all levels including the Trust itself. I heard that Chris Patten said he will prove how efficient the BBC is. We have all heard the stories of up to a dozen BBC news crews covering one story so its not believable. We are to assume a public funded organisation that has hardly seen any efficiency drives in its history is in a perpetual state of utopian efficiency. Its wrong that the Trust set up to look after the interests of the fee payer does not do that.

    Balanced news coverage should not be a difficult problem to sort. There are BBC programs/people that do that so that in itself is a gift to the many managers there. It can’t be beyond their wit or that of the Trust to extend that good practice across the other areas that need it.

    What all this does do is give the certain impression to the fee payer that its antiquated and lacking in effective management. Private sector companies here often had similar problems which were addresses largely in the 1980s and 90s. To many viewers who most of which will work in the private sector the BBC looks antiquated, inefficient and lacking in management control of standards and costs.

    The other obvious PR mistake of the Trust is that when ever they are questioned about this they are the BBC and 100% on the side of the BBC. They are meant to act on our behalf so they give out the wrong messages. I also question the make up of the Trust, too many ex government, council and BBC employees.

  63. Electro-Kevin
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    With a compulsory licence fee for owning a television set one wonders why so many people subscribe to Sky TV in addition to what they already pay to the BBC.

    Is the “BBC delivers superlative quality” argument actually true ?

    As its output is constrained by directives on political correctness and agendas how can it be ?

    • Bazman
      Posted December 1, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

      SKY has a stranglehold on sport and in the case of SKY and Virgin Media it is very difficult to cut costs by not subscribing to some services as they are bundled together. The billing in recent times become more opaque to hide this as well. Threatening to leave is often the only way of reducing costs and even then they just want to increase your services for the same price. Like the utility companies and banks they rely on apathy.

  64. Kenneth
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

    Another example you may wish to raise: BBC North East tv Sunday Politics on 25th November and its obsession with public spending cuts.

    In general the BBC leads us to believe there are public spending cuts when nationally the opposite is true.

    Where there ARE local cuts, as with Middlesbrough, the BBC yet again has decided that this is a bad thing.

    On the programme, an interviewer asked: “How do you defend your community against cuts?”

    Where was the question: “How do you defend your community against overspending of taxpayer’s money?”

    Quite apart from the fact that I do not agree with the BBC’s opinion, I don’t think it should have an opinion.

    Perhaps even worse, was the interview that followed which was dominated by the BBC’s line of questioning where EVERY question was about public spending cuts.

    Why should the BBC attempt to impose its own agenda on this election?

  65. Simonro
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    John, this might sound somewhat rude, but your efforts to present anthropomorphic global warming as some kind of left wing pseudoscience bent on the destruction of business would be a charming foible were you not an MP.

    Perhaps I am living in some sort of fantasy world, but I expect a sensible member of parliament to either know what he’s talking about or still his fingers and step away from the keyboard.

    The basic science behind atmospheric heat containment was settled 140 years ago, the regulatory effect of CO2 on H20 noted 120 years ago, the possibility of human activity causing global warming 90 years ago, the increase in CO2 measured 80 years ago, the detailed measurement of radiation transfer through the atmosphere 60 years ago.

    50 years ago, after 40 years of arguing against the notion, enough data had been collected that many scientists began to investigate the idea properly. After 20 more years of arguing, theorising, modelling, and measuring, science came to the conclusion that anthropomorphic global warming was real. 10 years later, the IPCC was set up.

    The questions have been asked, the counter arguments have been made; by 1990 the only questions left worth asking were ‘how much’, ‘how soon’, and ‘what can we do about it’.

    • Neil Craig
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 11:14 am | Permalink

      Perhaps “Simonro” if you actually believe what you say you could explain why alarmists consistently refuse to enter public debate on the subject. Not just Parliamentarians (there is not single one in all of Scotland willing to do so) but even those quangos and government funded fakecharities & of course, the BBC, despite receiving hundreds of billions of pounds to push the scam (even online hacktivists …… routinely turn out to be state funded).

      If your case were secure you would not fear that it would fall apart in an hour o9f free debate & would not have to depend on insulting people.

      Surely if your case were

      • uanime5
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

        Why do scientists need to enter into a public debate when they have published all their research in scientific journals? Especially since the deniers haven’t published any scientific works.

        • Edward
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

          Because Uni, that attitude is contrary to all the rules of academia.
          You should never refuse to explain your views and take part in debate with the those who have questions or alternative views.
          That is how progress is made in our free open and democratic world.
          They take the view that they are right and they will not allow any debate as debate is not needed as they are right.
          All who defy them are heretics.

    • A Different Simon
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      “After 20 more years of arguing, theorising, modelling, and measuring, science came to the conclusion that anthropomorphic global warming was real.”

      No . Some scientists reached that conclusion . Others reached different conclusions . Others still reached no conclusion at all .

      It’s clearly not “settled” or the debate would not be continuing .

      “The questions have been asked, the counter arguments have been made; by 1990 the only questions left worth asking were ‘how much’, ‘how soon’, and ‘what can we do about it’.”

      And those questions still remain unanswered .

      • uanime5
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

        Given that the scientists based their conclusion on evidence while the deniers based their conclusions on their delusions it’s clear that a conclusion has been reached.

        The fact that cranks are criticising the science because of their ideologies doesn’t mean that the science is wrong.

        • Edward
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

          Simon best to clarify Uni speak :-

          delusions= those who dare to hold different views to any consensus view

          cranks=those who uni disagrees with

    • Edward
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

      By definition no science is “settled”
      All you have is the current theory which as time passes is often proved wrong by new discovery, new data and new research.
      The history of science and medicine is littered with the discrediting of the current “settled” science by new theories.

      You say “the only questions left worth asking were”:-
      1 how much….well 0.75 degree average increase in the temperature of the planet in the last century. Not what I would call catastrophic and below the predicted rise.
      2 how soon… well could be a long wait for doomsday because no increase since 2000 and Al Gore’s dire predictions already not coming true.
      3. what can we do about it…very little I think. We humans are mistaken if we think that just by reducing the levels of carbon dioxide we can reduce the temperature of this planet to some arbtrary level and then tweak it for evermore in the future by permanently manipulating the level of CO2

      I am old enough to remember the last two doomsday theories which didn’t come true which we had to study at school and college as being “settled” science.
      One was in the late sixites when we were told the planet was cooling and we all were going to freeze to death and the other one was in the seventies was to do with increasing world poplulation levels which we were told by 2000 would get to levels which were unsutainable and that we would all die due to food shortages.

      • uanime5
        Posted November 30, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

        Given that the deniers have constantly failed to provide any evidence to disprove climate change the science is currently settled. Just because some scientific theories were wrong doesn’t mean scientific theories you don’t like are wrong.

        1) Given that a 2 degree increase is going to cause major problems earth a 0.75 degree increase is a major problem.

        2) According to NASA every decade has been warmer than the previous decade. So the temperature is continuing to rise.

        3) Well humans can reduce this problem by not pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

        Regarding food shortages that is already happening in large parts of Africa.

        • Edward
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

          I notice uni, you are one of the “new warmists” who now say 2 degrees is the figure.
          What has happened to those in your movement who used to say up to 10 degrees have they been told to shut up?
          What happened to the term Global Warming, why is it now always referred to as Climate Change?
          I notice that your movement has also quietly dropped the word “catastrophic”
          I notice you carefully didn’t mention anything in your reply about “the world is going to freeze” scare of the sixties which never happened.
          Nor the doomsday, end of the world theory of population levels which led to the completely unnecesary compulsorystrerilisation of millio s of women
          You keep asserting that there is no science on the deniers side and this is plainly untrue, open your eyes and do some searching.
          Go back again to Al Gore’s film and see how those scarey predictions of rapidly accelerating temperature rises from 2000 and huge sea level rises are not coming true.
          For me it is a science for you it is a religeous belief system so I realise you will never accept any eveidence to the contrary.

        • David Price
          Posted December 1, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

          1) Who is predicting 2 degree increase?

          2) According to NOAA [1] there hasn’t been significant global warming for 16 years which cotradicts the prediction models used by CRU et al.

          3) You are assuming the problem is caused by increased CO2 and that humans are the principle agent. What are the grounds for this assertion given [2]?

          [1] “State of the Climate 2008” report

    • David Price
      Posted December 1, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

      “After 20 more years of arguing, theorising, modelling, and measuring, science came to the conclusion that anthropomorphic global warming was real.”

      Simonro – But, as described in an open letter to the UN on 29th November 2012, a large number of scientists [1] indicate that the predictions are based on models that their own creators now say are wrong, the discrepenecy between predictions and measurements are so great as to make the models invalid.

      [1] at least 128 real scientists, not head of comedy, Greenpeace, representative of Grteenpeace or CofE or other non-scientific, non-specialist personnel.

  66. wab
    Posted November 29, 2012 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

    “She was not asked to produce any evidence.”

    Yes, why wasn’t she asked to give hours of evidence on Farming Today, eh. Mr. Redwood has provided zero evidence for his naive and non-science-fact-based view on climate change on this blog, and he has no word or time limits to adhere to, so there is no excuse. If Mr. Redwood does not understand the basic science of climate change (and it is clear that he has no clue) then he should refrain from making petty attacks on scientists.

  67. David Price
    Posted November 30, 2012 at 6:18 am | Permalink

    Good luck getting a response, I ‘m still waiting for a response to, or even acknowledgement of, a complaint I raised with the BBC in 2010.

    Perhaps you might also like to raise your complaint with Ofcom as the issues of bias and inaccuracy appear to contravene sections 5 and 7 of the broadcasting code.

  68. oldtimer
    Posted November 30, 2012 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    A number of those commenting seem to think that the science is settled and that all climate scientists are agreed about this. This is not so as a recent open letter to the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon reveals:

    • uanime5
      Posted November 30, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

      Have any of these scientists produced any scientific research to back up their claims? Thought not.

      • oldtimer
        Posted December 1, 2012 at 10:06 am | Permalink

        Obviously you have not read the letter, or examined the names of the signatories, nor investigated their research output.

  69. Alan Wheatley
    Posted November 30, 2012 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    As the BBC and the Trust are separate entities, would it not be better for the Select Committee to have their representatives appearing before them separately, rather than the DG/Chairman double act we currently have? It is clear from watching the proceedings on the Parliamentary Channel that the two believe in speaking as one, which is definitely not the point of having two organisations.

  70. Terry
    Posted November 30, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    Good that you are writing to Patten complaining of the obvious bias the BBC still holds even after the recent debacles exposing their mis-management.

    Is it not possible to have the Media Select Committee intervene and place some strict controls on the MO of the BBC?

  71. Ruperto
    Posted November 30, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    This article is embarrassing.

    Mr Redwood is an intelligent man so it is squirm-making him to make such ridiculous statements.

    To take one trivally simple example: “not asked how she could predict the average but not the individual years that make it up”

    But that is how the science works.

    I cannot predict whether a single roll of one die will be a one or a six – but I can be very comfotrtable predicting the average of lots of rolls will be 3.5.

    There are lots of things going on in one year’s weather: some are wetter than average, some are drier then average – but over a long period (30-50 years) they will cancel out and you are left with the average. So if there is a long term trend then it is there that you can see it.

    Which is, of course, exactly what we *are* seeing.

    Global warming was predicted and modelled over 100 years ago: and the data we have now is just what was predicted.

    She was not asked to produce evidence because the scientific consensus is clear: if there were an article on Big Bang you would not expect the interviewer to ask for evidence – event though some politicians do not accept that either…

    It is sad that the party of Mrs Thatcher pays so little attentioon to her: she was the first poltician to seriously raise the issue of the risks of global warning and her remarks are only more astute with time.

    • David Price
      Posted December 1, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

      The issue is not that the climate changes but whether AGW is a significant issue. 128+ scientists in a letter to the UN suggest not.

  72. uanime5
    Posted November 30, 2012 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    John it’s because of ignorant politicians like you that so few people have any respect for science and so few people wish to study it (to the detriment of many industries). Science isn’t an ideology where you can pick the views you like the best. Science is where scientists conduct tests, obtain data, and draw conclusions from this data. So Alison Twaddle was correct to state what the scientific evidence showed, rather than provide nonsense that matched the ideology of egotistical politicians.

    If you have evidence that the “email controversies” showed anything why don’t you post this evidence rather than launch a smear campaign because you’re a coward who doesn’t want to admit you don’t have any real evidence to back up this claim.

    The scientist could predict the average temperature because scientists have been comparing the average temperature over period of years (usually a decade) to the average temperature from the preceding number of years (usually the previous decade). This enabled them to show that the average temperature has risen every decade for the past 100 years.

    John it would take her hours to go through the vast number of scientific works to show why CO2 is a major factor effecting climate change while water vapour, sun variation, wind, and cloud patterns are not. Perhaps you should act like a real scientist, actually investigate the causes of climate change, and try to find evidence that backs up your claims; rather than acting like a child, coming up with a bunch of ideas supported by no evidence, and demanding that everyone else has to prove your wrong.

    Reply: Science is never “settled” – it proceeds by endless challenge to received opinion. Why are you so touchy about any challenge to human CO2 global warming theory?

    Regarding the German confusing England and the UK outside of the UK very few people know the difference between England, Britain, and the UK and use these names interchangeably; just like many people in the UK don’t know the difference between Holland and the Netherlands.

    • cerberus
      Posted December 2, 2012 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      As I point out below UK CO2 is 0.00144% of natural greenhouse gas flows. If you find that difficult to comprehend I’ll put it this way:

      Annually, natural flows of so-called greenhouse gases are seventy thousand times greater than the carbon dioxide we produce in the UK!

      Perhaps if you go away and think about that for a very, very long time it may eventually dawn on you in the mists of time why the Windmill Plan is nothing less than complete unmitigated insanity.

  73. Dolphinhead
    Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    Bearing in mind that there are currently plans to build 1200 coal fired power stations around the world will someone please explain what the point is of the British people coughing up billions of pounds to reduce carbon emissions by an amount that will be exceeded in about half an hour by the new coal fired capacity. This is monumental stupidity. Why the government wants to punish its citizens in this way beats me.

    John Redwood will you please explain this to your knuckle-headed colleagues. Thank you

  74. cerberus
    Posted December 1, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    The atmosphere is not of course a greenhouse and is infinitely more complex so it does not behave like one.

    But let’s suppose it did and greenhouse gases did in fact influence climate, although there is no empirical evidence they do.

    Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, 95% of the whole. CO2 forms but 3% of the total of greenhouse gases. However of all annual CO2 flows only 3% derives from mankind. And of that total 1.6% is produced in the UK although that proportion reduce every year.

    Hence even if greenhouse theory worked (and there is no evidence it does) the annual UK contribution would be :

    0.03 x 0.03 x 0.016 = 0.0000144

    Or 0.00144% compared with naturally occurring greenhouse gases!

    And for that our government is effectively determined to reduce this land to the Stone Age.

  75. Bazman
    Posted December 1, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Much of the post on here is right wing fatalistic fantasy and belief in the free market to solve all problems except when it cannot. When the consequences and subsequent financial and human costs of these fantasies are laid out many on this site they go silent. Dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. A hive-mind mentality that has the audacity to complain the BBC is bias. Ram it.

    • Edward
      Posted December 2, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

      Bazman, I fail to see how you get to those conclusions.
      There are some very good arguments put forward on this site and they are of a great variation of views.
      We are on here to listen to Mr Redwood and at times comment on his articles not to answer all your questions and your demands for replies.
      If you were writing on a more left of centre blog site I could rewrite your post as follows:-
      Much of the posts on here are left wing fatalsistic fantasy and a belief in the state to solve all problems…

      • Bazman
        Posted December 2, 2012 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

        In modern society the state plays a major part. Stopping the scroungers is a major question and one I have never shirked from. Bring your arguments on please.

    • APL
      Posted December 4, 2012 at 8:12 am | Permalink

      Bazman: “Much of the post on here is right wing fatalistic fantasy and belief in the free market to solve all problems except when it cannot.”

      The belief of some of the ‘right’* in the free market**, is only rivaled by the real delusion on the ‘left’, uncritical, unlearning faith in the intervention of the State.

      *right in this case clearly doesn’t include such luminaries of the Tory party as Hestletine, who has just produced a report extolling the virtues of state intervention in every aspect of industry and commerce.

      Totally ignoring the fact that it is largely these very policies that have led to the destruction of British industry in the period since the end of the first world war.

      ** ‘The market‘ you so disparage is nothing more than the aggregated decisions of the population at large. So is infinitely more ‘democratic’ than anything dreamed up by the commissariat you seem to want to organize our society.

  76. nicholas tesdorf
    Posted December 1, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    The situation in Australia (ABC), Canada (CBC), and America (PBS) is just as bad as the BBC. The problem lies in the readily available funding in Science and the Media for the dissemination of the unscientific fairy-tales sponsored by the acolytes of CAGW or Global Warming, or Climate Change or Abnormal Climate or whatever it is called this week.

  77. c777
    Posted December 2, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Wind power producing a pitiful 0.42 GW at the moment.
    What a white Elephant.

    No significant warming for the last sixteen years.

    So why are we hobbling our economy with this “fairy story”?
    As for the BBC, they are damaged goods, rotten to the core.
    Sell it off.

  78. Jaff
    Posted December 19, 2012 at 2:39 am | Permalink

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed the BBc seem a little ‘pro global warming’ (or climate change is it is not getting called)

  79. Davy
    Posted January 9, 2013 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    What is happening here is a new religious movement using all forms of energy, humans included, to create a new global reserve currency, itself backed up, in the form of carbon taxes, thought up eon’s ago when the CAT, the exhaust monster was unleashed into the globally and regulated paradigm of everything that breaths and converts cold air into hot air.

    However, there is a double edged sword to contend with and going on here.

    Those that own both the raw materials/fuels, also own the banks that will be trading in their own dirty policies/carbon footprints the whole use to function, see the picture yet??

    Does anyone know who owns the shares/majority via treatese of the coal, oil, gas, wind, water, etc, why the (named rich family), recently purchading the worlds largest cosl mine in South America.

    I don’t expect this post to be allowed for very long on here, do look to where and who the men without hats put their money, after all where there’s muck, there’s the money double and new religion.

    While everyone is fighting over the lie, those funding it are laughing all the way to their own banks.

    Wake up, Google Human Farming, for Steffan to explain a little history, for those who never wanted to listen at Leys Cambridge.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page