Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Whitehouse on science journalism | Main | Mann bashes Dellers »

GWPF report on BBC

From Benny Peiser:

On Thursday, 8 December, the Global Warming Policy Foundation will release its new report The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal, written by Christopher Booker and with a foreword by Sir Antony Jay.

The new report reveals that the BBC has not only failed in its professional duty to report fully and accurately on one of the biggest scientific and political stories of our time: it has betrayed its own principles, in three respects. The BBC has above all been guilty of abusing the trust of its audience, and of all those compelled to pay for it. On one of the most important and far-reaching issues of our time, its coverage has been so tendentious that it has given its viewers a picture not just misleading but at times even fraudulent.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (59)

Given the Draconian defamation laws in the UK, GWPF and Booker and friends must be serious to the greatest degree. I cannot wait to read this report!

Dec 5, 2011 at 9:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

Perhaps the BBC can ask Michael Mann and Phil Jones to provide criticism of the motives and "fossil fuel" financing of such politically incorrect thinking....

Dec 5, 2011 at 10:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterSkiphil

'a foreword by Sir Antony Jay'

Wonderful, what an appropriate phrase for those with memories of 'Yes Minister.'
In another foreword, that to 'Yes Minister vol. two', he and Jonathan Lynn noted a point that might have some resonance with this new document -

'These diaries accurately reflect the mind of one of our outstanding national leaders. If the reflection seems clouded, it may not be the fault of the mirror.'

Dec 5, 2011 at 10:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterChuckles

I'm sure this will get a mention..

BBC's environment analyst - Roger Harrabin - on the advisory board of Tyndall, whilst Tyndall are funding CMEP (Roger Harrabin, Joe Smith ) running seminars at the BBC..

Not least of which the 2006 seminar: Climate Change - A Challenge to Broadcasting - that changed the BBC's climate change reporting..

Dec 5, 2011 at 10:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

The BBC loves to bring us news of reports that have just been published. I can't wait for this new report to appear on the BBC news on Thursday. I'm sure John Humphpreys will cover it on the Today programme.

Dec 5, 2011 at 10:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

This will be an interesting read especially given the contents of the recently released emails. I look forward to reading it.

I cannot imagine the BBC pursuing a libel case since they would have to provide discivery and that is likely to be extremely damning. Further, fair comment and public interest would appear to be a good defence, not forgetting that the truth is also a valid defence.

Dec 5, 2011 at 10:14 PM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

Any guesses whether this report will make the evenning news on Thursday? I rather doubt that we will be seeing the BBC giving air time to this, If they were not all in it together, the other networks could have a field day with the BBC, just like the Guardian going after the News of the World.

Dec 5, 2011 at 10:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

Interesting to compare a journalist interacting with the CRU and the BBC activists interacting with the CRU:

Dec 5, 2011 at 10:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Speaking of reports - I'd say it isn't a good thing when The Onion gets into the fray,26808/

Dec 5, 2011 at 10:45 PM | Unregistered Commentertimg56

I’ve lodged a complaint with the BBC Trust and eagerly await a big dollop BBC sophistry in response. Well, that’s what I’ve received in the past and I see no reason why Climategate 2 will change any minds: none so deaf as those who don’t want to hear. Maybe Messrs Booker and Jay will have more luck.

Dec 5, 2011 at 10:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterSummertown

"GWPF report on BBC"

For a split second I thought that meant a GWPF report was going to be aired on the BBC. It was rather like the idea of water flowing uphill.

Then I read further and the world returned to normal.

Dec 5, 2011 at 10:57 PM | Unregistered Commentercosmic

mudoch is under attack in Australia as well as in Britain:

5 Dec: UK Register: Natalie Apostolou: Australia Network stays in Aunty's lap
Murdoch empire out in cold as tender scrapped
The Australian government has scrapped all future intentions for a competitive tender for the Australia Network broadcasting contract and has instead handed national public broadcaster the ABC with a permanent contract...

if Murdoch wanted revenge, he could expose Neil Wallis's damage control for the CRU Posse and much, much more. however, as the Murdoch media is as much a participant in the whole CAGW scam, don't hold your breath.

Dec 5, 2011 at 11:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterpat

Released as the dawn mist clears, the morning after-
Attenborough's magnum opus.

Dec 5, 2011 at 11:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos


Dec 5, 2011 at 11:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Hughes

The BBC cannot sue for the reason of disclosure mentioned above. Another reason is that truth is a legal defence against accusations of libel.

However, the real reason they won't sue is because they have a £3.2 billion propaganda budget to combat any accusations. They also have a tame newspaper, friends in all the political parties, NGOs, pressure groups and across the celebrity world.

They are simply untouchable. They consider themselves to be anti-establishment, when they are, in fact, the establishment.

Dec 5, 2011 at 11:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

They are as much the anti-establishment as they are "tax-payers"
Bono Ono , their bow ornament, a case in point in fact.

Just do not mention the name of the bloke anymore that is sampling wine and making long walks in nature at Ford's and Nike's expense, 70k for a whole year, while his little bed is spread out and kept warm at Al BeeBCeejah. I get urticaria when I read his name.

They never mature do they? Never take responsibility want to have the pay of responsibility but the joy of scoulding around and kicking riots. You cannot have it all. Obama looks at the occupy whatever and you hear him think he wants to be the good guy there you know..lament the evil of the power and the us empire. then go home at night to moochelle and have diner served in a banquet. Grow up.

Dec 5, 2011 at 11:45 PM | Unregistered Commentertutu

I just wrote this to the Beeb:

Hello BBC Trust,

You have invited the public to give their views on the BBC.

My single biggest gripe with the BBC is its atrocious peddling of the Global Warming scare story. There is plenty of evidence that the contrary viewpoint - or heresy if you prefer - is being actively suppressed. A clique of lefty headbangers with names such as Harrabin and Black and Watts are peddling this preposterous apocalypse myth. I do concede that the sainted Attenborough, and even the great geneticist Steve Jones, are true believers and are entitled to express their views. But Prof Jones's recent proposals for the suppression of dissent is precisely contrary to the BBC's statute. He's off my Christmas card list, bad lad.

Voltaire didn't actually write, ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", but he should've. I approve of David Attenborough talking through his hat on this subject; the quid pro quo is that those of us trying to oppose the appalling groupthink of the wicked Global Warming Industry should be given fair airtime.

Please see: "The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal", written by Christopher Booker and with a foreword by Sir Antony Jay.

Best regards,

Brent Hargreaves

Dec 5, 2011 at 11:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrent Hargreaves

While I appreciate this report, it seems that anybody who has objectively read one of Richard Black's spun and selective sermons or watched their 'Daily AGW Doomsday' report with David Shukman in the pre-Climategate era would recognize their blatant propaganda for what it was.

Almost all major American and Canadian networks are almost as bad, with the Canadian CBC - home of David Suzuki - a very close rival of the BBC in this department.

If it were not for the net, and sites like this one, they would have got away with it.

Dec 6, 2011 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered Commenteredward getty

@ZT Dec 5, 2011 at 10:27 PM

Interesting to compare a journalist interacting with the CRU and the BBC activists interacting with the CRU:

WOW, ZT! Some fascinating stuff you've uncovered. Your findings also shed considerable light on how Team IPCC respond to questions from journalists whom they don't really want to answer. 5152.txt is quite the eye opener (if not jaw-dropping in its utter arrogance - Solomon is proving herself to be quite a piece of work!):

I am not trying to put words in your mouth but rather make a suggestion about the type of thing to say - in fact it will be better if you rewrite this so it is your own words. Such a broad letter could have great utility: we could all use it whenever appropriate, rather than just for New Scientist.
Not only was none of what we gave them quoted, but our responses were misrepresented as 'lack of transparency' and such nonsense. [...]

A little more "classy" than Jones's "Keith will say ..." but no less controlling.

Speaking of Team IPCC, and those who put words in the mouths of others ... I've found a few "context" pieces that shed a little more light on Hulme and his pre-CG1 "forgotten" activiism, circa 1997:

The climate consensus coordinators’ cookbook

But back to the topic ... like others I'm very much looking fwd to reading this latest GWPF report.

Dec 6, 2011 at 12:07 AM | Unregistered Commenterhro001

ok...Christopher Booker ia about the only original Private Eye journo who still contributes there...why is Private Eye not homing in on the evident corruption in Huhne and Cameron? Except, we all knew they only diss their p[erceived enemies...

Dec 6, 2011 at 12:16 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Perhaps they included this, fronted by David Attenborough :

The BBC decided to do its own climate 'science' in 2006 with the Climate Change Experiment whereby 250,000 viewers downloaded a computer model that used spare processing power to predict future climate. Inevitably it concluded with statements such as this:

"UK temperature
The UK should expect a 4°C rise in temperature by 2080 according to the most likely results of the experiment.
Heatwaves are on the rise and, by 2080, summer temperatures of 40°C will be common. Winters will also be warmer."
"Depending on how quickly we act and how much action we take, the effects of climate change can seriously be reduced."

The following shows the top 100 equity investments of the BBC pension fund:
A very rough glance shows around £100 million invested in oil companies.

The BBC pension scheme is also a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which "brings investors together to use their significant collective influence to engage in dialogues with policymakers, investors and companies to accelerate the shift to a low carbon economy."

"The IIGCC currently has over 75 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, representing around €7.5trillion"

Dec 6, 2011 at 12:44 AM | Unregistered Commentermfosdb

cynic...just awaits the officlial quash!

Dec 6, 2011 at 1:23 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Re: diogenes

why is Private Eye not homing in on the evident corruption...

Probably because Ian Hislop believes in CAGW. I remember seeing him on "Have I Got News for You" when they showed a newspaper clip calling into question one of the CAGW claims (I can't remember which one) and he started spouting the usual stuff about funding, flat earthers etc.

Dec 6, 2011 at 1:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

that comedians have not mined the comedic potential of CAGW is a crying shame....Josh excepted.

here's Hislop and his wife, in such good company... Individual Supporters
Sir Nicholas Stern...
Dr John Hemming, former director of the Royal Geographical Society: "The world's rainforests are crucially important, as a carbon sink, as a source of rainfall and as home to millions of species...
Victoria Hislop, writer: "This is a simple initiative but it could make a significant difference to the future of our planet. That's why I joined Cool Earth."
Ian Hislop, Editor, Private Eye: "Cool Earth - a better idea than more hot air."...
Jim Butcher, Executive Director, Morgan Stanley: "Only by thinking creatively and acting responsibly can we meet the huge challenge that climate change poses...

Dec 6, 2011 at 3:37 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

Will the BBC report it, though?

Dec 6, 2011 at 3:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobert of Ottawa

i gather CBBC is children's BBC. take a look:

5 Dec: CBBC: David Attenborough raises concerns over climate change
The legendary filmmaker Sir David Attenborough has spoken out about climate change.
The Frozen Planet star believes that if the world's temperature continues to rise, there could be dangerous consequences for the human race.
His comments come as world leaders meet in South Africa to try to hammer out a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions...
As his latest documentary, Frozen Planet, comes to an end, Sir David's seen for himself the effects of climate change in the North and South poles.
He's spent much of his career travelling the world and feels it's extremely important that something's done to protect the planet before it's too late.

when Climategate broke in 2009, one of my first posts on sceptic websites warned media companies not to keep inserting CAGW into nature documentaries and the like because they would have no value in the future, once the public caught on to the scam. i now only watch pre-CAGW Attenborough docus online.

Dec 6, 2011 at 4:13 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

Met Office makes an exception for Durban:

6 Dec: UK Daily Mail: Severe water shortages, hotter days and more floods: What the weather has in store for us in 2100 (but at least we might get bumper crops)
Millions of lives could be ‘changed forever’, MP warns
By Tamara Cohen
Despite recently dropping seasonal forecasts because they kept getting them wrong, the Met Office yesterday laid out its predictions for Britain’s weather in the year 2100…
***In the most extreme scenario, 160,000 more people could be at risk of coastal flooding particularly in popular tourist areas of the south coast, the report says.
The ‘Climate observations, projections and impacts’ report, published yesterday at the UN climate conference in Durban is the first time Britain’s weather has been mapped out for this long.
‘It comes just a year after the Met Office ditched its 90-day forecasts for the public after a predicted barbeque summer turned out to be a washout…

Dec 6, 2011 at 6:04 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

hro001 - yes, Fred Pearce was apparently in the habit of doing journalism: checking the details, comparing perspectives, asking for facts, and evidence - and reporting what he found. The BBC activists were just pushing an agenda. Meanwhile the climatologists were cutting-and-pasting, avoiding falsification, and evading FOI requests, as fast as they could.

Dec 6, 2011 at 6:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterZT

@Diogenes: Private Eye has form when it comes peddling dodgy scare stories, viz: the MMR debacle as a prime example. I daresay catastrophic global warming peddled by those lovely people at Greenpeace who just want to save the planet, unlike those wicked polluters in Exxon, is right up their street. They are a bunch of immature student lefties after all.

Dec 6, 2011 at 8:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterSebastian Weetabix

timg56 @ 10:45 PM:

You know the game's up for the scam when the Onion start parodying it :)

Dec 6, 2011 at 8:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

I'm not sure the Onion is parodying it. Isn't the drift of that piece that CAGW is real but it's all too late?

Dec 6, 2011 at 9:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

That onion piece is subtle... at first I though parody, the looked at the graphic and then thoguht maybe it is "advocacy by ridicule". Difficult call.

Dec 6, 2011 at 9:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

They'll just change tack.
The whole scam is built upon easily-changeable scenarios.
Global warming = climate change = climate disruption = ?
With their comprehensive network of believers (US president/UK premier/united nations/practically all the press and media/) the scam has obviously been a long time in the planning.
WWF/GREENPEACE/ETC.....look at the degree of interlinking between them all....even people from the largest financial institutions in the world (banking/accounting/legal)...
Many of the worlds richest people support The Cause, openly of covertly.
The "fall" of communism just marked a change of approach in same....the wholesale infiltration of many groups and banners.....
Now we have the EU planning to take-over smaller countries, bypassing democracy, by installing managers instead of politicians, and then installing a system that means that France and Germany will, effectively, be ruling the roost.

Dec 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohnM

Presumably the report is already out to the press under embargo till Thursday, to let journo's chew on it. Who will cover it? On present form the Mail is almost bound to, and Booker is a regular at the Telegraph. Then there's the rebuttal brigade....

Dec 6, 2011 at 10:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Hmm, let me check my little green book......
..E..F..G.. Ah here it is....

"The GWPF doesn't reveal its it's private donors therefore everything it says is funded by Big Oil and is invalid"

Got that? Good. I have now successfully proved to all you contrarians that the BBC isn't biased, that CAGW is real and that all climate scientists behave honourably.

Dec 6, 2011 at 10:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS


"Ho ho", you had me there for a second.

Dec 6, 2011 at 10:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Your Grace,
Is this GWPF report the reason why you and Tony Newbery held off on criticism of the Jones Report?
I was surprised that you two didn’t react more strongly to the disgraceful way you were treated in a report that was wholeheartedly welcomed by the BBC Trust. In a long treatment of climate sceptics and deniers, you two were singled out, along with Monckton, and treated as irrelevant clowns.
I thought at the time that a mass write-in by your readers might have been an effective tactic. The tactic of countering an official report with an unofficial report undoubtedly looks more serious and less messy, but I don’t see how it can win in what is essentially a popular uprising against the tyranny of the official consensus view of the world.

Dec 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

The timing of this is interesting to me. I have spent a whole year complaining to the BBC about the infamous "Horizon" programme in January, in which Sir Paul Nurse stated that humanity produces 7 times more CO2 than natural sources. Dozens of letter have been sent back and forth and the BBC has rejected my complaint at every stage. The very final stage is my appeal to the BBC trust, to which I received the following reply:

"Dear Mr Longstaff
Thank you for your email of 9 November.
The Committee considered your appeal at their meeting of 2 November, and the finding will be ratified at their meeting of 1 December. Following this, we will write in December to provide you with the finding.
Yours sincerely
Lucy Tristram
BBC Trust Unit"

I wrote again this morning and requested the result. I am not holding my breath.

Dec 6, 2011 at 10:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Longstaff

Here's an interesting observation on the BBC (and other media-related matters) from none other than "Poor Phil" (circa Nov. 2008). He's describing an outline for a "Global Environmental Change Project" at UEA's School of Environmental Science - a project that he's evidently given in the past:

[...] To almost all in government circles (including the US from Jan 20, 2009), the science is done and dusted. The reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, i.e. the counter argument is rarely made. There is, however, still a vociferous and small majority of climate change skeptics (also called deniers, but these almost entirely exclude any climate-trained climate scientists) who engage the public/govt/media through web sites. Mainstream climate science does not engage with them, and most of these skeptics/deniers do not write regular scientific papers in peer-review journals. The project would address the division through the reporting (in mainstream media and bloggs) of a number (to be decided but 3-5) recent scientific papers. Issues to be addressed include: should a vociferous minority be able to bully mainstream scientists?; should mainstream climate scientists have to change the way they have worked for generations (through the peer-review literature)? and should the science be conducted across blogg sites? [emphasis added -hro]

Source: 4663.txt

With all the media being on their side, one has to wonder why they've been whining so much about it lately, eh?!

Dec 6, 2011 at 10:54 AM | Unregistered Commenterhro001

As a modest private donor to the GWPF since its inception, I am delighted that it is to publish "The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal".

Since the BBC refused to answer my request to know who were the panel of experts who had attended the 2006 seminar, I have not taken any BBC reports on climate change seriously. Transparency in science reporting is all.

The problem for the BBC is that, by allowing themselves to promote the CAGW religion, they are tainting their credibility in all factual reporting. This must present a long-term threat to this truly great institution's survival.

Dec 6, 2011 at 10:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Post

The BBC has already declared in its defence of Roger "The Dodger" Harrabin that climate change has been and will continue to be 'properly' debated.

So we can define in this context that 'properly' means a partisan approach in reporting and debating climate change. Such an admission shows editorially no change at the Beeb.

It will be more of the same.

Dec 6, 2011 at 10:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

hro001 at 10:54 AM:
Wow! Phil Jones has really gotten an anti-skeptic program together there! (Anyone else noticed how Professor Jones even has his spelling checked by Michael?)
I particularly liked the idea of “climate-trained climate scientists”. (As in “potty-trained”, one imagines). Judith Curry et al must count as “un-climate-trained” climate scientists, I suppose.

Dec 6, 2011 at 11:03 AM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Re: hro001

climate-trained climate scientists = indoctrinated climate scientists

Dec 6, 2011 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

#1683 The BBC, CRU, Climate Change and the Road to Damascus

(or how the BBC tackles Global Warming scepticism)

date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:56:57 +010 ???
from: "Jonathan Renouf" <???>
subject: Final thoughts
to: "Keith Briffa" <???>

Hi Keith,
Good to talk to you this morning. Just a few thoughts to reiterate what we're hoping to get out of filming tomorrow.

1) Your interview appears at a crucial point in the film. Up until now our presenter (Paul Rose, he'll be there tomorrow) has followed two conflicting thoughts. On the one hand he's understood that the world is currently getting warmer. But on the other he's discovered lots of historical stories (the Bronze Age, the MWP, the LIA) which tell him that climate changes naturally all the time. In trying to resolve this paradox he's come across this thing called the hockey stick curve, and he's come to you to explain it to him.

2) Your essential job is to "prove" to Paul that what we're experiencing now is NOT just another of those natural fluctuations we've seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is - the present warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that. This is a very big moment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global warming.

3) The hockey stick curve shows that what Paul thought were big climate events (the Bronze Age maximum, the MWP, the LIA) actually when looked at in a global context weren't quite as dramatic as he thought. They're there, but they are nothing like as sudden or big.

4) Paul can question you on things like: How reliable is the hockey stick curve? How do you work out past climate (cue for you to talk about proxies)? What drives all the "natural" fluctations in climate (this can be answered in very broad terms eg it's down to changes in the sun's output, volcanoes etc)

5) In terms of filming my first choice is to do it as a projection in Zicer, where you show the Mann curve, then flick up as many other ones as you think are important (within reason!) and elaborate the point that what's happening now is unprecedented compared to these historic records. In my ideal world, you walk right up to the projector image and point things out on the screen, with parts of the projected image falling on your heads and shoulders. Stills of tree rings or anything else climate related eg ice cores, corals, would also work as powerpoints, because you could talk about them as egs of proxies.

Hopefully this makes it clear what I'm trying to achieve.

Look forward to tomorrow.

All best


Jonathan Renouf
Series Producer
Science Department

On Climate Change the BBC truly believes that in order to convince people all they need do is to stage a conversion in order to persuade.

Dec 6, 2011 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac


Jonathan Renouf was responsible for the BBC's Climate Wars programme

Dec 6, 2011 at 11:24 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

At the end of the day it's what the planet does that counts and not what the hockey sticks, the BBC and other climate liars say and do. And the planet is refusing to obey Mann's hockey stick and other predictions supported by the BBC crooks and their cronies. We are suffereing financially due to this lie, and until this lie is put to rest we will continue to suffer. But it's better than getting a direct hit from a nuclear bomb. That's the only consolation I can find.

Dec 6, 2011 at 11:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlex


I wonder what advice Renouf gave Ian Stewart in how to achieve the desired effect?

Dec 6, 2011 at 11:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

I don't see any evidence of any science in the Science Department for which Jonathan Renouf is a (the) Series Producer. From the tone of that email, surely it is the Propaganda Department for which Jonathan Renouf is a Series Producer.

Dec 6, 2011 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

I think you're reading the Onion article wrongly. Basically it's poking fun at the changeable dates for climate catastrophe, and all the prnouncements that things will happen by such-and-such a date, all obviously wrong.

It may be very gentle on AGW in general, but it's another drip in the stream of drips. This article wouldn't have been (allowed to be) posted 2 years ago.

Dec 6, 2011 at 12:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

What I find interesting is that the BBC used someone like Paul Rose to play a sceptic when he is a dyed-in-the-wool hard-line warmist.

Here is Paul Rose being questioned about sceptics in Aug 2011: "Paul Rose: Nature isn't a bottomless pit for our waste"

Q: "Does seeing that research yourself leave you frustrated with climate change scepticism?"

Rose: "Yes it does. The scientific community are in consensus about climate change. The main driver is humans. There are nearly 7billion of us and we have to accept that if we’re going to cut down forests and have the industry we need we’re going to affect the planet. Many people look at nature as something there for our use – for medicines, for food, as a bottomless pit for our waste – and it isn’t. The planet isn’t limitless."

Not only an alarmist but a Malthusian to boot as well.

Do we really need to see and hear the likes of Paul Rose on the BBC someone who believes that humanity is a blight on this planet?

Dec 6, 2011 at 12:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>