First, by way of some background: I was listening to a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) feature on National Public Radio (NPR) a few weeks back. It was about “Climate Change.”
The piece was, to put it indelicately: fluff.
It was the fluffiest of fluffy, fluffed-out, fluffier than fluffy, fluff… all dressed up as Important Information Meant To Make You Say, “Hmmmm…”
The BBC program that NPR aired was called “The Real Story.”
Well! Apparently, the BBC considers the fluffiest of fluff, the flapdoodliest of flapdoodle, the most nonsensical of nonsense, the codswallopiest of codswallop to be… the Real Story.
Talk about sad! It prompted me to write the following letter to them:
To whom it may concern:
I was listening to your program on National Public Radio a few weeks ago… you were presenting a broadcast on environmentalism, and you asked for “story ideas.” That prompted me to write this.
I’d love to hear an exposé on the environmentalist movement. As I’m sure you’re aware, due to generally left-wing politicization, environmentalism is awash in fraud and corruption. Sadly, that threatens to derail what could be an important and beneficial movement.
Here’s a bit of what I mean. While your report was interesting, it was riddled with meaninglessnesses (to coin a new word). Listening to it, a discerning person would come out either confused or less informed than he went in. Which is my principal gripe with National Public Radio (remember: I heard your piece on NPR) in the first place. Especially since that organization bills itself as the “in-depth” source for news.
In the BBC piece, there was, I believe, a person from Uganda who said something to the effect of, “We have to do something about Climate Change because we’re experiencing its effects already.” Well, that’s just an obviously meaningless statement – or worse: a deceptive one – on the very face of it! The climate does nothing but change so, by definition, every single person who has ever lived has “experienced the effects of Climate Change” every moment of his or her life since the first human took his or her first steps! The obvious question poses itself: Why allow such meaningless flapdoodle into your broadcasts?
Your correspondent continued, mentioning something about the desert encroaching on Ugandan land. Again, that’s meaningless. Deserts do that. Deserts are always, always, always either expanding or retreating. That’s all they do! And they do it in the context of a climate that does nothing but change. Since we’re completely unable to quantify the extent to which human action is affecting the movement of the desert’s borders, your correspondent’s report was meaningless. Worse, it was deceptive. Surely you don’t mean your “news” to be deceptive, do you? Deceptive news is, obviously, fake news. Or worse: propaganda dressed up as news.
Even more to the point: Not only does the climate do nothing but change, everything that anyone or any living thing does… changes the climate. It’s important to know that, because later in your program someone came on and suggested that we must stop using carbon-based fuels immediately, and that we must start using improved systems of transportation – meaning no cars or trucks – and that that will somehow improve everyone’s quality of life. Then she said some odd thing about switching over to “regenerative economics” from what she termed as “degenerative economics.”
Since so-called “regenerative economics” requires that both the economy and the population remain in a “steady state,” it’s seems plain that “regenerative economics” is little more than a pretty word for both population control and, at its logical endpoint, totalitarian Socialism. In other words, this “environmentalism” being espoused is simply a thinly-veiled Socialist movement, kind of confirming the derisive term: watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside.) Let’s not forget that Socialism has always, even at its least awful, failed to produce the following two things: (1) improved quality of life for the populace, and (2) a cleaner environment.
To buttress her argument one of your correspondents lamented how the environmental movement had not done a good job of explaining to all us rubes how eliminating the use of carbon-based fuels would improve everyone’s life. No. It’s much worse than that. The environmental movement has not communicated – except through hyperbole and scare tactics – the actual science that suggests that there’s a problem in the first place!
Worse, the environmental movement has failed to reveal some extremely important facts, one of which is: there is no science anywhere that has ever been able to quantify humanity’s effect on the climate – either to warm it, or to cool it! The one kind of desultory piece of evidence to that effect was Michael Mann’s infamous, “Hockey Stick” graph, now known to have been fabricated. Still more: the only way to quantify the effect of humans on the climate is to be able to quantify all other effects on the climate as well. For, without knowing all that, even having a better than pitiful grasp on how much humans affect the climate is… meaningless.
What the environmentalist movement has not communicated is not the great benefits to our lives of either keeping the place clean, or going Socialist, but rather they’ve failed to present any persuasive case that they have the slightest notion of: (1) how much human activity affects the climate, or how, or (2) how much other factors affect the climate, or (3) …what they’re talking about.
As mentioned above – everything that any living thing does changes the climate – from the movement of each individual cilium on a paramecium, to your little finger twitch, to the limo you drove to the airport to fly your private plane to your environmentalism conference, and all points in-between. And, again, we have no ability whatsoever to determine how much each of those things affects the environment.
However, it is important to think of the environment! And this kind of superficial, deceptive and often outright fraudulent argumentation does much more harm than good to that noble goal.
So, my idea for a story is for you to present the contrary point of view. Present points of view – like, say, mine – that place a high premium on being responsible stewards of our planet, but which place an equally high premium on informed, intelligent, rational, in-depth, non-politicized thinking and research on the topic. Not the codswallop of hacks like Michael Mann. Don’t do some hit job on “climate change deniers” – no one denies climate change, that’s all it does – do a real story on the Bjorn Lomborgs of the world. Real scientists doing the real scientific work of peer-reviewing the environmentalist movement and of pointing out its massive defects and deficiencies. The science and research of these people – particularly in the face of organized ostracism from the environmentalist left – merits every bit as much publicity as the environmentalist movement itself. More, really. However, these real scientists, and their work, see little to no air time on the established media. More’s the shame, as the conclusions of these scientists are vastly more credible than those of the Climate Change alarmists. Why? Easy: there’s no fame, glory, or vast tsunamis of funding headed their way as a consequence of their bucking the fetid tide of climate hysteria.
In the story that I’m humbly requesting that you air: Make several things known that will help actually to educate your listeners. Point out that the climate does nothing but change. No change, no climate (cf, eg: “Moon, the”). Are “Climate Change Activists” really advocating that the climate not change? Really? Point out that there has been massive fraud and corruption in the so-called “Climate Change” movement. Show also that the term “Global Warming” disappeared from general use (on the political Left, and in the Climate Change movement) because further investigation into the phenomenon indicated that it… wasn’t happening. At least not as it was described in the bug-eyed, vein-popping, earlier communiqués of the environmentalist movement. Dig into these things… in-depth. You know, actually do what you say you do. You and I both know that the area under discussion is rife with opportunities for exposé after exposé after exposé.
Frankly, there’s a large, and growing, body of thought “out there,” that news organizations like the BBC and NPR are little more than hack propaganda outlets for the political left. I have to confess that I, reluctantly, belong to that body of thought. When I hear nonsense phrases like “We have to do something about Climate Change because we’re experiencing its effects already” from the mouths of so-called “experts,” quoted as a lead-on to a so-called “news” piece, it reinforces that conclusion. Furthermore, when the rest of the piece was every bit as sloppy and superficial as that opening phrase, it does hammer home the point.
Serious question: What happened to the once-great BEEB?!? National Public Radio, I understand. They were a fraud from their inception… but, the BBC?!? How can that be?!?
I have another suggestion for you in general: Have someone examine such content of yours and address things like the amateurish sloppiness of it by… getting rid of it. When I turn to NPR or to the BBC, I don’t go there hoping to hear slop. I know I’ll get it from NPR, and it feeds a regular feature that I write to expose their biases and superficiality. But, you all should be deeply embarrassed to broadcast it. A good editor, who can examine your content with a critical eye, would be the best thing to happen to you all. What ought to be even more embarrassing to the BBC is: after such a flawed, second-rate piece, to hear an NPR promo, trading on the BBC slop, and extolling their thorough, exhaustive, comprehensive reporting… as they so often do. And you should be ashamed to have been the grist for such a publicity piece.
Listen, I have no illusions that you’re actually going to air a piece exposing the fraud and corruption in the environmentalist movement, because such an investigative piece would lead you to the vastly greater, far more wide-ranging corruption of the political left in general… of which the BBC is an integral part. Worse, I (and many others) suspect you’re aware of that corruption… and ignore it. However, I do retain hope for humanity in general. Buried – generally quite deep – within the ranks of the leftist and leftish media are people who are unwilling to submit to its strictly-enforced, unquestionable orthodoxies. Such people might see the calls for real, independent, investigative news and reporting, and might wish to avail themselves of that fantastically rewarding pursuit. They’ll exert, from within, the pressures that we from without are unable to wield, and to far greater effect. Or they’ll start something new to compete with the hacks.
In the meantime, however, I do keep trying. There was a time when the BBC was a great organization. Can she return to greatness? Who knows, but no one should stop trying to help her to do so.
Well, you’ve heard my idea for a story. Will you have the courage and integrity to air such a story? Only time, your consciences — and your character – will tell.
x (here, I used my real name)
The Environmentalist movement, as well as the political Left, is riddled with fraud and corruption. This is pretty much beyond dispute. However, there is a compelling national, state-wide and local interest in… cleaning up after ourselves.(1)
But… it’s in no one’s best interest whatsoever to turn the world’s economies over to Socialism to accomplish the fraudulent goals of environmentalism.
Let’s be clear here: the environmentalist movement, in general, has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment. Certainly the leaders of the environmentalist movement aren’t at all interested in “the environment.” They’re all about nothing more nor less than sneaking Socialism in through the back-door.
Further: Socialism is nothing more than a doctrine meant to dress up in nice words the desire by petty tyrants to control every aspect of your life and mine. Socialism is serfdom dressed up in pretty words.
(1) Don’t get me wrong. I realize that there’s a huge amount of activity, as well as policy, procedural and, potentially, legislative implications in that statement.