Worst BBC programme of all time?

BBC Radio 4's Feedback programme looked at the space given to global warming sceptics in the period covering the release of the Fifth Assessment Report.

The programme was shameless, stupid and dishonest.

But you knew that.

Feedback

Comments

[JaceF]

Couldn't take more than a few minutes of it

[Alex Cull]

Here's a full transcript of the programme, where it covered the Wato report:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20131018_fb

Roger Bolton: Now you've talked about BBC News having occasionally a sense of "false balance".

Steve Jones: Yes.

Roger Bolton: What's that?

Steve Jones: Well, that's really what we've been talking about, the notion that simply because somebody says "A", somebody else must be given equal time to say "Z". Now that may well be true in many, many endeavours of the BBC News, which covers its field extremely well. It is much less true in science. I mean, that's what I found, really, when I was doing this science report. I think it's worth - in the unlikely event that anybody wants to read it, it's on the web - it's worth reading the first few pages, which basically says - and I believe it with some passion - that BBC science is the best in the world. And I include, in that, BBC News coverage of science. But what I found really quite striking was the contrast between BBC science on the news, particularly perhaps the radio news, and that in the features - Horizon and that kind of stuff. Because in the science features, the longer programmes, there's an understanding of what I think of as the culture of science, the way that science actually works. In news there isn't - didn't seem to be, anyway. And what you tend to forget that in science, most scientists agree about most things, okay. But at the edge of knowledge, as our knowledge moves on, there are tremendous disagreements. There's mutual hatred and loathing, there's cheating, dishonesty, all this kind of stuff. But that's at the edge. Most of it is a consensus. And I think what the BBC finds hardest to deal with is a consensus.

[ConfusedPhoton]

Time to stop paying my licence!

The BBC has dropped to a new low!

[Dave_G]

3 mins 14 seconds I lasted before I nearly punched my laptop screen out! Utterly and totally reprehensible and with no possibility of redress. The BBC sicken me.

[stewgreen]

- there are a few earlier comments over on Unthreaded

[Cheshirered]

I know a bloke who hasn't paid the TV licence fee for years. It's the only way.

This tripe confirmed the bloke in question is entirely correct.

[Autonomous Mind]

"Should one be impartial when the facts are clear?" There's that famous BBC balance again. In the intro. Setting the scene without any ambiguity.

I listened to the programme live in the car and could not believe the bias and distortion. It wasn't an examination of the feedback, it was a blatant assault on scepticism by a procession of warmist alarmists using the same old hackneyed rubbish about denialists, unqualified scientists, evidence-free doubt mongering, etc.

This was the worst and most propagandist puff piece for warmism I have ever heard. One wonders how those who sent feedback praising a rare outing for a climate sceptic on BBC air felt, listening to the carefully chosen contributors (including journalists, just to add a bit of appeal to authority) who attacked Carter being given a platform to share facts in the face of increasingly hysterical hypothesis spinning.

Perhaps we should send feedback about Feedback. Somehow I doubt any rebuttal will see the light of day.

[Chaveratti]

It's da BBC, wadda you aspettano!

[RoyFOMR]

My only regret is that I got rid of my tv about three years ago and stopped watching live broadcasts at home so I can not get the satisfaction of cancelling my license again!
WTF has happened to this country and why have we let it happen?

[Radical Rodent]

As I stated on the previous post, it was propaganda - utter, utter propaganda. Harrabin: “…we have been trying, in the UK, to find one climate change sceptic who is a working scientist in this field, and we can’t find even one..” Any “working scientist in this field” in the UK who shows scepticism soon becomes a non-working scientist in this field, a situation you helped to create, Roger.

“…the World at One, striving to be impartial, unearthed an Australian geologist, Bob Carter…” How witty – a geologist was “unearthed”, and it is PROFESSOR Bob Carter, thank you very much, BBC.

And how many times was the word “denier” used, with no challenge from the presenter (whose name I cannot remember, and have no wish to commit to memory, anyway).

Propaganda, in all its loathsome glory.

[Barry Woods]

I sent some twets to feedback- ie better to have a public immediate respoponse, than long drawn out complaint (tried it before very disappointed)

Jones needed challenging- "deniers deny evidence" in 1 breath then "deniers don't deny co2 risen" (evidence)!

so what exactly is a climate change denier then... Steve? - why did the BBC not ask this?

lots of abuse by Jones. but I bet he can't state what any sceptic opinion is (ie Watts, Montfort, etc)

which begs question. What exactly is definition of climate denier - Carter certainly does not deny climate @BBCR4Feedback

@BBCR4Feedback @BBCRadio4 Jones said climate deniers don't deny CO2.Why not ask him what exactly IS a climate denier then? @aDissentient

‏@BarryJWoods
why did u not put Prof in front of Bob Carters name,he is more qualified on C science than Prof Jones @BBCR4Feedback http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03cv47r …

[Cumbrian Lad]

Of the three 'listeners' mentioned, two of them are quite easily found via search engine to have close links with journalist and 'media'; one of them has close links with Imperial College (now who do we know there?) the third has a common name and so can't be placed directly, but certainly someone of his name also has close links. So one would suspect a rather manufactured 'outrage' from listeners (calling Mr Ward....).

Roger Harribin repeated his claim "
Roger Harrabin: I don't think there are many climate change sceptics in the scientific world. I mean, for instance, we've been trying in the UK to find one climate change sceptic who is a working scientist, in this field, and we can't find even one."

which Paul Dennis has already refuted. If Paul is about, I would suggest he take this up with the programme in the strongest possible terms. I'd have thought an untruth in full knowledge is a serious charge against a journalist.

S Jones make the statement "...and there is a small minority of climate experts who feel that there are problems with the models involved, that they've been overstated - so you could certainly make an opposing position." but then for the rest of the time claims that the science is undebateable. The claim that he as a geneticist has a better understanding of climate science, particularly long term climate issues, than a geologist is farcical.

Looks to me that the News teams have a better grip on reality than the 'science' teams, and the professional warmist offence takers have good contacts with the feedback team and have used this to push their agenda. Questions as to the identity of the 'listeners' should be asked of the editors of the programme.

Also, we should be complaining in the strongest possible terms, and twitterstorming or whatever the appropriate term is, just like the professinal offence takers.

[Green Sand]

"The BBC at War - Censorship and propaganda "

" ......But the Corporation argued that to put out clumsy rebuttals at the behest of Government would dignify Haw-Haw's propaganda, and undermine the trust of the audience. In the long run, a trusted news source for audiences at home and abroad would be a more potent weapon..... "

In the long run, a trusted news source for audiences....?

[Arthur Dentf]

The programme was shameless, stupid & dishonest

Of course it was this was the BBC now one of the most untrustworthy sources of news in the world.

[stewgreen]

Barry Woods has picked up that the BBC tried to downplay Bob Carter by not using his title Professor , but up-played one of the "ordinary listeners" speaking by failing to mention he runs a green energy company
In the Sunday repeat I want to hear him introduced as "Simon Sharp runs a green energy company"
.Woods provided a link to www.greenrouteenergy.co.uk/about-us
(page disappeared, but came back ..we have screenshots)

from her tweets before I was suspicious of Anjana Ahuja the "science journalists" also heard complaining . She lists her husband as a "entrepreneur physicist" so I did think "is he connected to Big Green?", but I can't find what he does

Do we have to check if Steve Jones is somehow connected to green cash ?
- dramagreens have come out to gangup on Barry on Twitter but he's gone to bed

[Colin Porter]

I may be very unpopular for this comment, especially from our host, his lordship, but during the period when AR5 was being aired, I don't recall the BBC interviewing any sceptic commenters. I did see an interview with a one Andrew Montford, but his response was so muted and did not make any serious challenge to any of the gross distortions from the IPCC that one wonders if he wished not to make waves for fear of risking his new found position as the token "Sceptic" to be called on to put the sceptic viewpoint whenever the BBC condescended to solicit one. Even worse was an interview with Benny Peiser, who agreed with everything that was said from the "consensus" side and where even the interviewer appeared more sceptical than he was.

I may be doing our host a disservice for this comment as I may have missed some of the more hard hitting points made, or perhaps my memory was not what it should be, or perhaps skillfull editing appeared to make the sceptical arguments lack substance. But I do think that having been given a rare opportunity to have a voice during this important period, the opportunity was blown for the general population to learn a little about the truth of the climate argument. Very few will take the trouble to read blogs like this and the BBC knows it. Now they have put up the shutters and things are back to normal and we are once more in the wilderness, as evidenced by this piece of disgraceful propaganda presently being discussed. The BBC producers must be very satisfied with their achievements. They managed to give the error ridden IPCC report an easy passage and present it with all its flawed logic as gospel fact, without any serious challenges and without the general public learning anything about opposing views, but at the same time being able to smugly report that they gave due respect and exposure to the sceptic arguments.

[Geoff Sherrington]

All scientists should be sceptical. Science progresses when scientists question every aspect of the development and acceptance of every hypothesis. Authority for this statement is found in many publications, including this draft -
First author.
Stephan Lewandowsky
School of Psychology
University of Western Australia
Draft title.
NASA faked the moon landing Therefore (Climate) Science
is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
Extract
Skepticism is not only at the core of scientific reasoning but has also been shown to improve people's discrimination between true and false information (e.g., Lewandowsky, Stritzke, Oberauer & Morales, 2005, 2009).
.......................
If you accept these broad postulates, you have to conclude that it WAS NOT impossible to find a climate science sceptic for the BBC to interview. The BBC was merely uninformed of the meaning of "sceptic" and its variations.

[kingkevin3@googlemail.com]

I mean what a bunch of numpties...calling people deniers. What sort of rational human being simply refuses to debate and calls someone names. Extraordinary...."the dangerous blustering of denialists". I simply cannot put my sense of contempt for these cretins into words.

[MikeHaseler]

3 mins 14 seconds I lasted before I nearly punched my laptop screen out! Utterly and totally reprehensible and with no possibility of redress.

I have been told we may have grouds to take action against the BBC for hate speech - but who knows what that means..

[Ian W]

"I mean what a bunch of numpties...calling people deniers. What sort of rational human being simply refuses to debate and calls someone names. Extraordinary...."the dangerous blustering of denialists". I simply cannot put my sense of contempt for these cretins into words.
Oct 19, 2013 at 1:03 AM | Unregistered Commenterkingkevin

Simply put they are cowards. The last thing that they want is a rational debate. It is easy to hold forth using 'talking point' sound bytes to a microphone. It is something else entirely to have your ignorance displayed to the public by someone else at the microphone. The more observations go against their claims the less likely they will be to allow any one to debate them. They are scared.

[woodentop]

@MikeHaseler - if you append a 'gm' to my name and send an email to an appended google based email address I'm happy to have a look.

[entropic man]

I was particularly taken by Steve Jones' distinguishing between science and opinion. Climate change research and reviews such as IPCC AR5 are science based. The opposition is mostly opinion based.

[chippy]

I'll glad I don't qualify as an Intellectual, so capitalised.

It appears to be a most grievous and debilitating ailment of the cerebrum.

[George Steiner]

You mustn't get so angry fellows. What is important after all is having a place like the Bishop's to discourse wittily on all sorts of things irrelevant. Because your BBC will always be there, like England and will always be the same, like England. So have a nice cup of tea and relax.

[michael hart]

Hmm... ~30 seconds in....I'd better get myself in the right frame of mind before I listen to the rest of it. I'll pre-emptively ban myself from commenting for 24 hours.

[Neil Hampshire]

Steve Jones' main point seemed to be that the BBC should not permit anyone to comment on the subject of climate change unless they had formal qualifications in climate science. I was pleased to hear that he was prepared to accept that there are some reputable scientists who disagree with the consensus view on global warming. Unfortunately, scientists are busy people and they are often reluctant to speak to the media. For this reason it was necessary to ask a competent communicator to front their opinions and views!

For some reason Steve Jones seemed to INCLUDE yourself*, a geneticist, as competent to comment on climate science! [*himself? BH]
The BBC should no doubt EXCLUDE all of the following:-

Ranjendra Pachauri – Chairman IPCC – Railway Engineer
Paul Nurse – Microbiologist (permitted by BBC to run hour long programme on climate change)
Roger Harrabin – English at Cambridge
David Shukman – Geography at Durham
George Monbiot – Zoologist
Bjorn Lomborg – Economist

Just because the above scientists and journalists have no formal training in climate science it does not mean that they are not permitted to form an intelligent view on the IPCC report. I suggest that the Australian geologist, who acted as a sceptical spokesperson, was equally competent as any of the above to express a rational scientific opinion on the recent IPCC report.

[AecM]

It appears that the elite carbon traders have won the battle in the Establishment and are intent on completing their master plan of raising fuel prices to kill off the old and infirm.

Steve Jones is apparently the current President of the Galton Institute, which used to be known until 1989 as the Eugenics' Society: http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/professor-steve-jones-has-galton.html

Looks to be a re-run of Nazism now but here in the UK.

[Messenger]

Colin Porter
I seem to recall the Bishop was on TV for about one sentence worth. No doubt he had a half-hour recording made by the BBC, out of which the editors extracted the least damaging sentence they could find.

[Jiminy Cricket]

It is a pretty irrevalent programme.

You should be glad it was made. This is was the BBC really thinks. This was its 'dinner party' discussion.

So be under no illusions/delusions.

Keep the plebs happy in the back of the bus, give them EastEnders/strictly come dancing/dumbed down documentaries on the overhead screens. Whilst they get to drive the plebs to where it will be 'good' for them.

Be glad. It shows the BBC has contempt for the licence payers.

Also a nice little piece for history.

Ps. I stopped paying the fee this year.

[Steve Jones]

Despite comments above regarding non-payment of the licence tax, the BBC is smug in the knowledge that most people will continue to pay it. This is assisted by their disgusting and intimidating adverts designed to frighten people into paying it or face the consequences. My namesake on the programme is a disgrace to science.

[johnnyrvf]

I refuse to read or listen to anything 'scientific' broadcast by the BBC, however whilst I understand the justifiable anger at their latest pathetic attempt to continue the failed meme of CAGW/Climate Change/Climate Disruption or what ever trendy monicker they want to attach to it, WHEN the lights go out and the rest of the planet is witness to their gross manipulation of the truth the reputation of the BBC will be irrevocably broken; don't be upset by these posturings to authentic journalism, their reckoning will arrive soon enough, it may not end in prison sentences but it will end in crushed egos and for the likes of Jones, Harrabin et all that is far worse.

[Mike Jackson]

Sorry, EM, you've got it arse over tit.
Climate research and IPCC output is what is opinion based — climate models programmed to produce what the programmers want them to say, IPCC reports adjusted to make sure they agree with what the politicians want them to say.
Most of what I read from sceptics on the other hand tends to be based on boring things like facts and observations — science based in other words.

[Stephen Richards]

You don't pay a licence for radio. ;)

[Nial]

> I refuse to read or listen to anything 'scientific' broadcast by the BBC

"Pain, Pus and Poison" was a rare gem by Michael Mosely on BBC4 over the last few weeks, still on the iPlayer.

Nial

[thoughtful]

What no one has stopped to think about is what would have happened if the recent report confirming man made climate change had admitted that it isn't actually happening.

Imagine all those academics suddenly having their funding withdrawn, no more prestigious speaking engagements which pay so well, probably the end of a career and no chance of future employment in the academic sphere again. There is a huge vested interest in keeping the climate change bandwagon rolling.

Which Universities are giving funding to a climate change sceptic department?

Despite all of the prediction being shown to be either plain mistaken, or worse deliberately faked, and the evidence showing no global warming for nearly two decades there is still an appetite for the lies.

Our nearest celestial body, the moon is 130º C during the day, and -110º C at night. The thing which stops these extremes on Earth is greenhouse gasses. One of the most effective greenhouse 'gasses' are clouds ! Just take a look on a winters night at the difference in temperature when the sky is clear, or cloudy.

In the laboratory CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, but to be so it needs to be proportionately mixed at high altitude. What they never seem to want to tell you is that CO2 is a heavy gas and sinks to ground level, it does not mix at high altitudes in the way that the models assume it does.

This might well be the reason why the models fail to accurately predict changes to the climate !

[The Leopard In The Basement]

Having read Alex Cull's transcript and listened to key bits now.

Notice that Bob Carter is the clear annoyance that sticks in the craw but also notice, even after playing back Carter saying climate is expected to change, that not one direct example was offered that Carter said something misleading. Did he say the Earth was 6000 years old? Deny HIV/AIDS? Apparently nothing could be shown to point out his clear "wrongness". So what is left? Argument and innuendo from authority.

The whole episode came over across as a not-so-crypto power play disguised with scientific bluster.

I found this telling Jones quote from from Alex Cull's transcript:

And one could dig into where those opinions come from, and how many of them in the hundreds of emails I get, that climate change is a lie, how many of them are generated by the oil industry, in various people with a parti pris to pouring out pollution - I think quite a lot.

Let's get this straight here. This representative of science makes a sweeping claim that "quite a lot" of the emails he gets saying "climate change is a lie" are "generated by the oil industry" and "parti pris to pouring out pollution".

Besides qualifying as pretty much straightforward conspiracy theorising. No evidence is offered or asked for in the confines of this brave new world of non-sceptic-intereferred with scientific rigour.

If the interviewer had any genuine curiosity you may have thought this would have been an ideal moment for him to ask Jones "Wow Steve! That's interesting. How exactly would you "dig into" that and show this scientifically?"

But no.

The fact that any sound evidence of oil industry lobbying against climate policy is nearly 20 years old, and most are now fully on board with green washed acceptance, I can only assume that Jones is basing what he "thinks" are astro-turf emails from oil companies from the more feverish ends of the Oreskes/Cook level of paranoia.

Jeez, if this is what passes for scientific rigour at the BBC now then you can have it. Just pull the chain on it afterwards ;)

[AlecM]

CO2 does not 'sink to ground level'. As for it being a greenhouse gas, it does absorb IR but that energy cannot 'thermalise' in the gas phase. Few realise this because it requires deep understanding of statistical thermodynamics.

[Alan Bates]

Stephen Richards 9.10

The licence fee goes towards several services. Two of them are:
TV £7.96 per month per household
Radio £2.11 ditto

Since the licence fee is their only source of income, we do pay for Radio. The difference is the BBC does not require us to pay for it if we do not access colour or B&W TV.

Alan Bates (pedant)

[Mike Jackson]

TLITB
Perhaps someone should point out to Jones that Motormouth Ward is probably the loudest voice around these days and he, or at least his boss, is certainly funded by the oil industry.
Grantham has said in so many words how important oil is.
To his making money, that is.
You could hardly get a clearer example! No oil industry > no money > no Grantham Institute > no Ward.

[Radical Rodent]

George Steiner (Oct 19, 2013 at 4:29 AM): “…will always be the same, like England.” I hate to break it to you but, there are moves afoot to force change on that situation, and those moves are powerful and utterly oblivious to the mood of the little people (you and me). This whole ACC/AGW fiasco is but one facet of that change; you do not have to look too far to see many other facets.

(Cue our pet troll….)

[James P]

Stewgreen

"entrepreneur physicist"

I take that to mean he's not actually working...

[Jake Haye]

stewgreen wrote ...

- dramagreens ...

LOL, wish I had thought of that. I hope it catches on.

[Rick Bradford]

Well, that's really what we've been talking about, the notion that simply because somebody says "A", somebody else must be given equal time to say "Z".

But at all costs let's not stop Bob Geldof saying that the human race will be extinct within 17 years (although to be fair, I didn't see the BBC on the long list of sycophants who published his remarks in full).

[Julian Flood]

A post at Climate Etc, Trust But Verify, quotes a couple of very recent articles in The Economist. Their dissection of what is wrong with science -- all science, not just climate science -- should be compulsory reading for Professor Jones and the Feedback team. When the guardians of science are not doing their job, who is to defend the standard? It's 'deniers' or no-one it seems. Prof Jones prefers the latter option.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

JF

[stewgreen]

The BBC sometimes do a good job of educating the public e.g. 2 hours later on the same radio station (direct audio)

Steve Punt said .."People do have a tendency to jump to extremes, why ?" ..."As newsreader Martin Lewis got pilloried for pointing out years ago only bad news is NEWS, ..and he was right, This warping of perception has a name psychologists call it Availabilty Error. As in a tendency to base judgements on information available to us. And it has a profound effect, because when governments decided policy they have to take into account that voters have completely wrong ideas about lots of things Or as Hetan Shah the director of the Royal Statistical Society puts it 'How can you develop good policy when public perceptions can be so out of kilter wih the evidence' or anotherway 'How can the government not talk bollocks when the voters know precisely sod all about anything' ha hah ..that's why govs say one thing & do another ...." etc.etc.

Hetan Shah : "public perceptions can be so out of kilter with the evidence?..... the media has to try and genuinely illuminate issues, rather than use statistics to sensationalise."

quoted in Independent 09 JULY 2013 British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows

Original Paper : Ipsos MORI / King’s College London Misperceptions/ innumeracy Why do these gaps exist? Cognitive errors - Statistical literacy: difficulty with large/small numbers; levels v trends etc - Social psychology: availability heuristic; focus on negative information; framing/anchoring important; take time to notice Media/political rhetoric - Vivid stories; less emphasis on scale “Emotional innumeracy” - Reflects concerns, not facts - Motivated reasoning: “accuracy goals” vs “directional goals” Measurement/ definitional - Imprecision in questions - ...but also talking about different things

got that "talking about different things" i.e. not just one viewpoint

Examples
"A person sees several news stories about cats leaping out of tall trees and surviving, so he believes that cats must be robust to long falls. However, these kinds of news reports are far more common than reports where a cat falls out of the tree and dies, which could be more common."

OR A person sees several MILLION news stories about "scientists say" manmade CO2 will bring catastrophic global warming, so he believes that cutting CO2 averts catastrophe. However, these kinds of news reports are far more common than reports where such scientists OPINIONS are questioned (& shown not to be properly VALIDATED science)

BOTTOM LINE : is someone saying "it's a simple case of the science settled" misleading the public ?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Many years ago, I was proud of the BBC. Today, I really detest the Corporation. It is a disgrace.

[Micky H Corbett]

stewgreen

If you haven't read it you should read "Influence" by Robert Cialdini. Psychololgists believe (from testing) that we have 6 inate behaviours that can be triggered automatically without someone being aware of it. One of them falls under Commitment and Consistency - or if someone says its true long enough and you even believe it a tiny bit, you end up becoming an advocate for it.

I know I'm preaching to the crowd but the number 1 issue with "climate science" is that too many people have their heads in models with no appreciation of what it takes to actually get real data. And by real data I mean proper isolated experiments of basic effects, not some quick mock up to educate kids. Though is it useful it's not accurate to the level needed and may actually be demonstrating many effects at once.

The same people (I assume) probably don't realise that there is a person in London, not too far from Hampton Court, who's job it is to weigh a kilogram every day. The same kilogram, everyday, just to make sure the national standard doesn't deviate. So that they can use said kilogram in all their calculations.

[DaveS]

I was particularly taken by Steve Jones' distinguishing between science and opinion. Climate change research and reviews such as IPCC AR5 are science based. The opposition is mostly opinion based.
Oct 19, 2013 at 2:01 AM | entropic man

And you were a science teacher?

[Allan M]

Steve Jones is apparently the current President of the Galton Institute, which used to be known until 1989 as the Eugenics' Society: http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/professor-steve-jones-has-galton.html

Looks to be a re-run of Nazism now but here in the UK.
Oct 19, 2013 at 7:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterAecM

Well now, his distinguished predecessor Sir Julian Huxley seems to have held the following opinions:

"The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. Therefore… they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilisation."

And IIRC, in the aftermath of the discovery of the deatyh camps:

The message of eugenics could be unacceptable for a generation. (speech to the British Eugenics Society in 1951)

And, strangely:

Sooner or later, false thinking brings wrong conduct. (see wikiquote entry)

Although this last cannot be applied to these Huxleys and Joneses; there is no notion that false feeling may lead to false thinking. "Wrong" is not a word they can see to apply to themselves.

But if they are the superior types, why is all this heartless nastiness needed? How come they can't just outbreed the rest of us?

[AlecM]

@Allan M: Sir Crispin Tickell, great great grandson of T H Huxley and who influenced Thatcher, has reportedly called for a UK population of 20 million. Jonathan Porritt who allegedly indoctrinated Ed Davey at Oxford, has reportedly called for a UK population of 30 million. Sir Paul Nurse, President of the RS, is reportedly a past President of the Galton Institute.

The smell of eugenics' thinking by the elite is wafting around. The brutal rationing of energy by unreliable windmills would not be so bad if we were not heading to a new Little Ice Age; in the 1690s a quarter of Scots died from cold and malnutrition and that is our likely climate from the mid 2030s. Far fetched? Last week, Munich had its coldest start to winter in 200 years.