Friday Funny – #Attenbollocks

Josh writes via email:

We had a fun programme on the BBC last night that was high on emotion but low on facts.

The BBC describes the show this way:


David Attenborough climate change TV show a ‘call to arms’

Sir David Attenborough’s new BBC documentary on climate change has been praised by TV critics.

Climate Change – The Facts, shown on BBC One on Thursday, was a “rousing call to arms”, said the Guardian.

In a four-star review, the Times said the veteran presenter “took a sterner tone… as though his patience was nearly spent”.

Sir David, 92, has called global warming “our greatest threat in thousands of years”.

In its review, The Arts Desk said: “Devastating footage of last year’s climactic upheavals makes surreal viewing.

“While Earth has survived radical climactic changes and regenerated following mass extinctions, it’s not the destruction of Earth that we are facing, it’s the destruction of our familiar, natural world and our uniquely rich human culture.

“In the 20 years since I first started talking about the impact of climate change on our world, conditions have changed far faster than I ever imagined,” Sir David said in the film.

“It may sound frightening, but the scientific evidence is that if we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies.”

In a glowing review, the Telegraph called the title of the documentary “robust” and praised the use of Sir David in the central role.

“At a time when public debate seems to be getting ever more hysterical,” it said, “it’s good to be presented with something you can trust. And we all trust Attenborough.”

“Sir David Attenborough might as well be narrating a horror film,” wrote the FT.

“A panoply of profs line up to explain that the science on climate change is now unequivocal, never mind the brief clip of Donald Trump prating: ‘It’s a hoax, it’s a hoax, OK’.”

But it added: “Fortunately for our nerves the last 20 minutes focuses on what needs to be – and can be – done on an international and personal level.”

Sir David’s concern over the impacts of climate change has become a major focus for the naturalist in recent years and has been a theme of his Our Planet series on Netflix.

The new BBC programme has a strong emphasis on hope with Sir David arguing that if dramatic action is taken over the next decade, then the world can keep temperatures from rising more than 1.5C this century, limiting the scale of the damage.

The programme – which is now available on the BBC iPlayer – was broadcast as Extinction Rebellion protesters continues to cause disruption in parts of central London.


Well, there you have it, done in timing with “Extinction Rebellion” protesters who are nothing more than the paid rabble of eco-NGO’s. And of course, we’ve heard these end-of-the-world scenarios time and time again from whacked-out doomsters. They didn’t come true, and we are still here.

Josh wasn’t impressed, neither am I.

From left, David Attenborough, Naomi Orsekes, James Hansen, the viewers.

cartoonsbyjosh.com

Meanwhile, if you really want facts, may I suggest this book in which I have co-authored a chapter:

Climate Change: The Facts 2017 contains 22 essays by internationally-renowned experts and commentators, including Dr Bjorn Lomborg, Dr Matt Ridley, Professor Peter Ridd, Dr Willie Soon, Dr Ian Plimer, Dr Roy Spencer, and literary giant Clive James. Anthony Watts also has a chapter.

Get your copy now at Amazon, both Kindle and Paperback are available:

Advertisements

167 thoughts on “Friday Funny – #Attenbollocks

  1. A brilliant and accurate programme, strongly supported by science.

    That it went out at peak hour on the BBC and has been well received in the UK shows that support for the science of climate change and the provable, observable facts on its impact are mainstream opinion in the UK.

    Climate skepticism is a minority, US centric viewpoint.

        • If we can simply convince them to hold off for 12 years they will see for themselves what a gigantic hoax this has all been.

          On the other hand it might not hurt to thin the alarmist herd. Go ahead Jump!

          • ‘if we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade’ – Sir David

            AOC gives us 12 years. Who knows more, Sir David or Alexandria? Personally, I prefer 12 to ten.

            Republicans in Congress will propose to give us 15.

          • My doctor gave me six months to live. I said “Doc, I can’t pay your bill.” He gave me six more months.

          • “the scientific evidence is that if we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies”

            What are the odds? 5:1, 10:1? Evens?

          • Remember Elephant Ears prediction of 50 (?) month’s to live? Didn’t here any more buffoonery since that time lapsed.

        • I hope they don’t jump George – it’s so messy – and all these chemicals needed to tidy up

    • Have you considered the benefits of climate change? Do you even know what things have gotten better over the last few decades? Did this “accurate” program somehow fail to even mention them?

      • A brilliant and accurate programme, strongly supported by science.
        =============
        “The world is so far removed from how it ought to be that anyone that proceeds to reason according to how it ought to be, rather than how it is, comes inexorably to grief.” L.C.Epstein

        The IPCC says human CO2 emissions have only been an issue since the end of WWII. That is about 70 years of Climate Change.

        And in that time, not a single scientific prediction of climate disaster has come true. Not a single one. Rather, more people are living longer, in better health, and better educated, with greater freedom than at any time in the past 600 million years.

        What sort of science gets every prediction of disaster wrong? Junk Science. Contrast this with true science:

        Consider Einstein’s theory of relativity. 100 years ago almost no scientists on the planet believed Einstein to be correct. Even 50 years ago there was a great deal of doubt. When GPS was first launched back in the late 1970’s, the US Scientists initially did not turn on the Einstein space-time correction, because there were still significant doubts Einstein was correct!

        But, as part of his theory, Einstein made a number of prediction that would prove him right or wrong. And these were not predictions that “the sun would come up in the morning” that are all too common in Climate Science. Rather these were bizarre predictions, that time and space were not constants as we believed for thousands of years. Rather they could be warped, and as a result a whole range of unexpected things would prove to be true.

        And of those predictions made by Einstein, those very bizzare predictions that time and space were not at all what common sense told us they must be, that our view of the universe was wrong. Not just a little wrong, but a whole lot wrong. Not a single one of those predictions has ever proven false.

        Contrast Einstein with the predictions of Climate Science, that told us back in 1988 that the world had only 12 years before disaster. And here we are 21 years later, no disaster, with weather related deaths way down, and Climate Science has again told us that the world has only 12 years before disaster.

        • ferd berple

          “””Rather, more people are living longer, in better health, and better educated, with greater freedom than at any time in the past 600 million years.”””

          From very pessimistic point of view this could be the disaster what they are alarming.
          They seem to think that caveman time is the best for humanity.

          • this could be the disaster what they are alarming.
            ===========
            Take heart, 55 million people die each year. More people die every year than at almost any time in the past 600 million years. Climate Change!!

            And it cannot be a coincidence, 55 million is the population of England. Take heart Climate Science. Every year, the entire population of England is wiped from the face of the earth by the Griff Reaper.

        • Fred, the population of UK was 55M in around 1970 and has now risen to 67M, so there is evidence that the population of UK thrives on rising CO2 levels. Looking at the respective growth graphs this match seems to be somewhat more accurate than that between temperatures and CO2.

        • Einstein was wrong.

          “Gravitational lensing isn’t about the gravitational field bending space-time, as relativity describes it, said Dowdye. It’s about the gravitational field affecting plasma along a gradient; the plasma in turn affects the path light takes.

          “The scientists who support relativity are either unaware of this phenomenon or they don’t want you to know about this. This is bad news for them,” said Dowdye. “According to relativity, light bending should be everywhere you have gravitation.” If gravitation exists around an object that doesn’t have plasma around it, the light should still bend, according to relativity theory. This doesn’t happen, said Dowdye.”

    • Tell you what Griff, you leave us here in the USA alone when it comes to the CAGW nonsense and we won’t help you after you’re done committing economic and societal suicide.

    • Such is the absurd opinion of one Mr. Griffin aka Griff.

      Mr. Griffin is in the minority here, a US blog and it is well received in the US. So by his reasoning, Mr, Griffin shows that support for the scepticism of climate change and the provable, observable overselling on its impact (alarmism) is the mainstream opinion in the US.

      • Not to mention that, as long as we can keep DJT President, the US is OUT of the ridiculous “Paris Accord”. And you know what? If Europe wants to go on destroying it’s economy and hand us a huge competitive advantage in manufacturing and energy costs, well then you guys go ahead. Be Our Guest! You knock yourselves out, and we’ll just ignore you.

        • He posted in a tread some while back now that he would never return (Same with someone called Tony McLeod after losing a bet on ice loss IIRC. He hasn’t returned. I bet he’s still reeling from the recent JCU loss to Dr. Ridd about the state of the GBR in Queensland, Australia). I am not sure about e-mails to Anthony, but it would not surprise me.

      • griff: “Climate skepticism is a minority, US centric viewpoint.”

        Notwithstanding the popularity of WUWT, it is possible that griff is right (for once). For those who only get “the facts” from the MSM and the politicians, why would they even suspect there was another, legitimate, side? And then there is the pressure to conform, so even “skeptics” acquiesce. The madness of crowds, especially manipulated ones. Even scientists are in the bubble, so what hope does the common man have?

        What is the current polling on this question?

      • Anthony, you are the go to climate science guy in 200 countries! You have the awards to prove it. Griffin certainly can’t say he hasn’t had an education here. Many (honest, not the ideologues ) Anthro Global Warming types have had their minds changed here by the site’s openness and the availability of information, argument and analyses that are verboten elsewhere.

        Much of the new science in climate has been generated by sceptics and reluctantly accepted in the mainstream. For example natural variability was considered to be negligible until hammered on by sceptics and the arrival of the ‘Dreaded Pause” which the Team was obliged to invoke to explain why it wasnt warming after it could no longer be denied. A bigger role for the sun began to go mainstream and they lowered lower bound on ECS. I’m certain that Willis’s work is being or will be purloined, too. Without sceptics they would have continued with antique knowlege unchanged from Arhenius, Tyndall and Charney.

    • Get a grip Griff… I can asure you as a Brit with many brit friends in the uk livig in the uk… this was not well received.. it was viewed on the whole as emotional bollocks, and a pack of cherry picked lies with no view of the whole field. Being a sceptic is not an American preserve. Despite the hand waving greens and watermelon media.. people here tend to ignore global warming in the hope of a cracking summer like 1975.

      • Pedant alert:
        1976
        Attenborough, or rather his puppeteers know nothing about past weather or climate.
        This Easter in the UK is warm but not record breaking but the media is full of hype.
        The favoured strategy is to say that this or that day is the warmest this or that day ever recorded.
        They leave out the fact that other days shortly before or after have warmer past analogues.
        The relatively sound intellectual rigour of the post war period was lost in the 60’s to woolly minded, weak and spoiled individuals who have gained increasing political influence ever since and passed it down through subsequent generations in increasing intensity.
        This is how the vast achievements of a superior culture (not race) can be thrown away and lead to chaos.
        Until yet another vicious tyrant creates a new empire.
        Very sad.
        The end of the USSR was not the end of history but rather the death knell of a fat and complacent West.

        • Stephen Wilde

          An acquaintance of mine, a Brit, has lived in Russia since the fall of the Berlin wall.

          He does a lot of business in the UK and can’t believe the tripe we’re being served up about Russia. He pays 13% income tax and has free healthcare. The country is Democracy mad, as one might imagine after what they suffered. He lives in a city of 1M people with oil and gas industries and high technology employers. Crime is virtually unheard of and the city is multicultural with Jews, Muslims, Christians etc. all living together. The last religious crime there was 400 years ago. His 3 bedroomed luxury flat cost £70,000.

          Oh, the place has an international airport and it, and the roads, are never closed in winter.

          • He pays 13% income tax and has free healthcare.
            ============
            Reminds me of Canada; because it is nothing like it. 3rd largest proven oil reserves on the planet. Hundreds of billions of barrels of oil. Only 37 million people. Canadians should be rich. We should have the best schools, the best hospitals, the best roads, anywhere. Richer than Croesus.

            But we are not. Most families need to have both parents working just make ends meet. And still they are struggling. Those that have recently graduated from school have little prospect of ever affording a house. Hospital wait times are a national scandal, that kills people that could otherwise be helped.

            Pensioners get about 1/2 of what we pay to refugees that come to Canada. People that have worked and paid taxes all their working lives. They get 1/2 of what someone that lands in Canada without ever making a single contribution to the country. The average Canadian pensioner would be much better off to take a bus to the US, illegally cross into Canada and claim refugee status, than they are to play be the rules. Much better off. Instead of $1200 per month they would get $2500.

            And our highways system is a joke. For hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of miles, the Trans Canada highway, our showcase federal highway connecting the country, is a two lane, undivided stretch of potholes and patchwork pavement. A windy death trap at night in the winter.

            And the problem? The government would rather throw 200 thousand people out of work, than risk spilling a drop of oil 100 miles from the nearest human habitation. The government would rather throw 200 thousand people out of work to reduce global warming by 0.00001 C. To delay climate change in 2100 by 3 days.

            Our illustrious Prime Minister, aptly described as a “empty trust-fund millionaire who has the political depth of a finger-bowl”, would rather swan about the world handing out billions to foreign governments in return for getting his picture in the paper, while all the time only concerned with saving 9000 corruption backed jobs in Quebec.

            Oh, and did I forget to mention, the 200 thousand jobs lost in the rest of the country, those are not in Quebec, so they don’t count as lost jobs in Canada. Canada ends at the Ontario Quebec border.

        • As a teenager, our youth club always went on a Easter Monday hike. (Whit Mondays also). And I have memories of these Easter hikes being sometimes in warm, sunny weather, and once in SNOW. There is nothing ‘unprecedented’ about ANY kind of weather over Easter!

        • If you have 100 stations, and measure 5 parameters of weather, then you have:

          100 x 365 x 5 x 2 = 365,000 different possible “records” each year. The chance of getting a once in a hundred year record is 1 in 36,500. So every day you should be getting 10 “once in a lifetime” records.

          So it is trivial for a broadcasting to suggest “because somewhere had a once in a lifetime event … that everywhere is experiencing ‘change'”

          The only real change that has occurred is that a lot of people now owe their jobs to the belief that the climate is changing …. of more accurately the belief it never changed in the past and that somehow change is “unusual”.

      • I can also say as living in the U.K that the people I know do NOT believe in man made climate change, they DO believe in cyclic climate change

    • “That it went out at peak hour on the BBC and has been well received in the UK shows that support for the science of climate change and the provable, observable facts on its impact are mainstream opinion in the UK.”

      So the impacts of the science of climate change with observable facts have impacts on mainstream opinion.

      Opinions are easy to ignore.

    • In these matters why would anyone believe positions “strongly
      supported by science” ? Science may know about Climate, but
      it seems to me that it knows bugger all about how to interpret
      data, except when it comes out of their own computers. Come on
      chaps, brace up: You have a lot of ‘real world’ temperature information
      available (however dodgy it may be), and you have a lot of ‘real world’
      CO2 level information available (however dodgy it may be).

      With the invaluable assistance of 40 years doing survey analysis, I
      have examined these ‘real world’ data, and conclude that there are
      no convincing series of correlations in which increases in CO2 levels
      are followed by increases in atmospheric temperatures.

      That being so, the Official Theory collapses.

    • > Climate skepticism is a minority, US centric viewpoint.

      UN worldwide surveys consistently place climate change at the bottom of public policy concerns. You know this.

    • Shut down the UK economy out of an abundance of caution….and stop clear cutting U.S. forests for UK wood pellet burning.

      Do it now and don’t wait for Brexit.

    • “…provable, observable facts…”
      Translation: Wild, Alarmist claims based on pseudoscience and lies.

    • Griff
      You said, “Climate skepticism is a minority, US centric viewpoint.” That doesn’t mean it is wrong! It might well be that we are less gullible and less prone to persuasion by propaganda than people in countries with a history of being ruled by aristocracy. In any event, what you seem to have difficulty comprehending is that consensus is only important in political actions. As Einstein remarked, “Why 100 scientists? It only takes one to prove me wrong.”

    • Who is skeptical about climate? Climate is a real thing. Those who say others are deniers or skeptics of climate and climate change show their vast ignorance of the subject. I have never met anyone who denies or is skeptical of climate change. I have met many trust believers of the climate porn industry, and they are no different than those who believe in Bigfoot.

      “A lot of current ghost research is ‘assumption-led’. In other words, investigators start with certain assumptions, like ‘ghosts are spirits’, and then seek evidence to confirm that assumption. This is circular logic and not the way science works. In science, you start by collecting evidence in a neutral way, ensuring it is accurate, and then using it to form theories that explain the evidence. These theories are then tested to see if they are correct.”

      http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/articles/Scientific%20ghost%20research.html

      99.9% of ghost hunters believe ghosts are real, and they employ a parallel methodology of the IPCC.

    • You have reliable evidence for your contention?

      Remainers claimed that their position on the EU was mainstream. How did that work out?

      Mainstream media opinion has everything to do with politics and usually has zero to do with facts. On ALL subjects….

    • Poor Griff, I have relatives and scientific friends on the UK. None believe in CAGW. Two were devout believers a few years ago. I then told them to ask themselves a question: “If you believe in CAGW, why do you believe?” They all started doing their own research. They dug pretty deep, found nothing extraordinary about so called AGW driven weather events, and realized that all the hoopla about CAGW only comes from computer models, not the real world. Basically why the climate has been warming since the Little Ice Age there is absolutely nothing extraordinary about such warming certainly not the potential for CAGW due to a very minor “greenhouse” gas. One wrote me, “Do you know water vapor dramatically exceeds all other “greenhouse” gases AND most of the models do not model water vapor or the oceans very well at all. Griff I hope whomever is paying you to troll pays you well.

    • griff

      I love it that you think if it is popular, it adds to its veracity. If science truth is not measured by popularity, where would we be, eh? Back in Germany in the 1620’s sorting out the weather witches in proper (and popular) fashion, that’s where.

      From the piece:
      “It may sound frightening, but the scientific evidence is that if we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies.”

      If the damage is “irreversible” why is anyone looking forward to ending their lives under Communism? Why combine physical Hell with socio-political Hell? Who, living in a communist country in the 20th Century, ever wanted to remain there, unless there was some way to be a member of the controlling elite? We could learn some lessons from the “Gulag Archipelago” to make it better, I am sure, but with the ideologically possessed like David Wallace-Wells getting “platformed” by The Lancet, we should realise up front that accepting extreme, violent and populist views, all the while possessed by climate derangement syndrome, most people will discover to their horror that they are, “surplus to the needs of a sustainable civilisation”.

      The 20th Century shows what happens after that conclusion is reached, by the elite.

    • griff

      Sceptics are found all over the world. Don´t be so parochial.

      Provable and observable -s c i e n t i f i c- facts are of course mainstream opinion all over.

      Climate “science” do not give any of those.

    • “g. April 19, 2019 at 8:30 am
      A brilliant and accurate programme, strongly supported by science.”

      No and no.
      Science that over several years you have been unable to supply any evidence.

      “g. April 19, 2019 at 8:30 am
      That it went out at peak hour on the BBC and has been well received in the UK shows that support for the science of climate change and the provable, observable facts on its impact are mainstream opinion in the UK.”

      A) The BBC is not an organization that supports science. Much of what the BBC supplies is diktat, not honest science.

      B) People like the filmography and Attenborough’s voice, which explains the well received. Now let us see the results of honest surveys that show any increase in alarmist belief.

      C) Again you use words that you have utterly failed to demonstrate over years; i.e. provable, observable impact facts.

      Just more flowery fancy words from a complete waste of oxygen.

      “g. April 19, 2019 at 8:30 am
      Climate skepticism is a minority, US centric viewpoint.”

      What? Did you forget Asia? SE Asia? Russia? South America? Eastern Europe? Africa? Malaysia? Even France, Canada and Australia are mostly skeptics!?

      That inbred echo chamber you personally believe means world wide support for climate change is just a small group of whiny spoiled immatures; who lack skills or viable means of support if they did not have easy Government grants.

      Every day that passes, more and more people become aware that climate doomsters have been predicting imminent doom for over thirty years.
      These same folks also realize that;
      * the Arctic isn’t melting,
      * winter is still cold and snowy,
      * summers are not hotter,
      * spring and fall are still cold and warm an very normal,
      * some glaciers are growing,
      * rain still falls,
      * storms are less frequent and less violent,
      * sea levels have not substantially changed over their entire lives,
      * penguins are thriving, in fact no creatures are actually threatened by “climate change”,
      * Polar Bears are much more numerous,
      * The oceans are still mostly cold and the funny numbers NOAA and others use is because the actual °C numbers are within instrument error,
      * Antarctica is still frozen.

      A recent exposed Arctic treeline stump hundreds of kilometers north of the current treeline easily demonstrates that Earth has been much warmer this Holocene.

      Pathetic g.

    • Griff. You love winding us all up do you not? I suspect that behind it all you are are sceptic like the rest of us and enjoy giggling at our reactions.

    • Not being a regular on here, but is that comment by Griff meant to be humorous?
      If so, should it not have a sarcasm tag?

    • I notice this little twit also seems to be trolling the boards so he can hijack every thread from the top.

    • The fact that you use the term “climate skepticism” is a bit of a giveaway. Nobody here is skeptical about the climate.

    • Griff, really simple question for you.

      China right now is emitting 10 billion tons a year of CO2 and rising gently at a few percent per year.

      What levels do you think China should be emitting and needs to emit if we are globally to be safe, in the following years:

      — 2030
      — 2040
      — 2050

      The world is currently doing 37 billion tons. Also say what levels you think the world has to get down to in those same years.

      Every time I have had this conversation with an activist, they have refused to answer or evaded the question. Let’s see what you say.

      • I think a better question for Griff is: How do you intend to commit suicide when, ten years from now, we will be emitting even more CO2 than today, and will have passed the tipping point of no return? “Oh, the horror. The horror.”

    • Griff — perhaps you can explain how the British public is even capable of judging if these are “provable, observable facts”??? Their positive reception of the climate change rhetoric (and Attenborough’s film) may simply be due to endless propagandizing by the BBC for years, which has appealed mostly to their emotions and to a tendency to respond to sensationalism.
      Goebbels would be happy to see how successful his policy still is, 70 years later.

    • Attenborough is long past
      His admission to aged care facility..
      Poor bloke.. A giant of his
      Generation, reduced to
      demented doomsday garbage

      PS Griff I am getting a good deal of pleasure out of seeing your Center Alliance Party, here in South Australia, being accurately portrayed as what it is : Greenist lite mob.

    • It matters not a jot that one is in a minority but only that you are right. CO2 is the stuff of life and cannot by its very nature do the things claimed for it.

    • Well received? Programme didn’t appear in the top 50 programmes watched. So nobody really watched it.

    • “Supported by the evidence”

      The scientific method (look it up) requires you examine all evidence both pro and con – I have been doing this on a daily basis for the last 15 years on this subject and have thus far not come across a single piece of “scientific” evidence that stands up to critical scrutiny.

      There is a grain of (non-catastrophic) truth used to justify a mountain of outright nonsense.

      Belief (faith without proof) is for religion – not for science.

      Widen your myopic vision and you might actually learn something.

    • Always good to hear from a member of the flock of the Church of Warming a sect of the religion of Secular Socialism, who worship government. By science, I assume you mean, the climate scientists who are little more than the educated clergy of yore who provided the legitimacy of the kings right to rule by divine providence. That way they got to share in the plunder of the peasants by the crown and the king avoided the meassy use of the sword as they voluntarily gave up their liberty and property.

    • Congratulations to Griff on getting the first comment on the thread. Alarmists should always get precedence, as they are so worthy .

      This is the only thing on which I shall ever congratulate Griff. And by the way, there are plenty of climate realists in Britain.

    • A brilliant and accurate programme, strongly supported by science.

      Ah, so there was some other programme on at the same time as Attenbollocks’ show. One that was supported by science (unlike Attenbollocks’ show). You should have given everyone the heads up, as it clearly didn’t receive much in the way of advanced advertisement.

  2. “Hoax” isn’t the right word. That’s something done for the purposes of humor. A joke.

    This is a science cult formed to enable a wealth transfer scam, with various other groups riding the same horse to advance their own agendas. And they’re all taking advantage of some people’s need to feel superior by saving the world from bad people who simply don’t care as much as they do.

  3. Sad to see an old man exploited in this way.
    Same unscientific technique as using an autistic girl to read out the prepared propaganda of others.
    Desperate strategies in the face of a planet refusing to comply.

    • Nurse, Nurse, Sir David’s out of bed again! D is for delusional, demented, and dangerous – for the future of our energy dependent national prosperity, the Empire, hence the national infrastructure that lifted us to develoed status was built on coal use. Because he supports the renewables racket as a cure, that in fact barely reduces CO2 while making grid energy supply more expensive and unstable in engineering fact , but makes his rich pals lots of easy quick money from subsidies and wind mill rents. The real reason for promoting climate change = renewables. £6B pa wasted making enrgy supply worse in fact in the UK already, into the pockets of fraudsters on the facts, by the laws they’re crony politicians passed without thought or question. Huhne, Deben, Yeo, Hendry et al. Energy troughers we know about. How many more officials in the trough from the DECC and BEIS.

      Not that such an arrogant toff cares about the poor people he already helped to condemn to an early needless death from hypothermia from his comfy Richmond home. Much like the rest of the BBC’s privileged LGBTV arts graduates, who think the Guardian is a newspaper, and they are a news channel. .

      • @ Brian RL
        “the poor people he already helped to condemn to an early needless death ”

        He was on the record not so long ago stating on BBC Newsnight that “population growth must come to an end” …….

      • He has uttered nothing that wasn’t written by others, younger than him, for over 20 years. He follows a script. He is good at it. I met a couple of his scriptwriters at a funeral a few years back. Ideological youths they were.

        The bbc page pushing this dope left me slack jawed with incredulity. They obviously think they are fooling somebody.

        • From what I’ve read, all of his nature documentaries are scripted before they go out on site. I guess it makes sense that you want to be efficient with your crew and time in isolated areas. But there it is, they are scripted before they go onsite.

          Also most if not all of their close up shots are done indoors in a controlled environment. They are not on location for the vast majority of shots.

  4. From the article: ““In the 20 years since I first started talking about the impact of climate change on our world, conditions have changed far faster than I ever imagined,” Sir David said in the film.”

    What in the world is he talking about? What “conditions” is he seeing that we don’t see?

    I think all these “conditions” he refers to are in his fevered imagination, not in the real world.

    He needs a “The End is Near!” sandwich board to wear.

  5. What a shame! I have been a fan of Sir Dave for years. His nature series were great … until recently when he started lecturing us all and demanding that we change our evil ways. As he started his career catching animals for zoos (Zoo Quest series) I don’t feel he has much right to lecture the rest of us on looking after wild life. While there are many things that we should be looking at: deforestation; water pollution, etc. climate is beyond us.

    Anthea Collins

  6. I guess we weren’t acting fast enough for the rent seekers to make money as quickly as they’de like. I mean, what happened to the IPCC’s original claim the threshold was 3.0°C, then 2.5°C, then 2.0°C, then 1.5°C.

    Did the earth’s temperature not rise fast enough for them? Or did something happen to physics between 3.0°C and 1.5°C that we all missed?

    So where do we go now? The 1.0°C limit has already been breached hasn’t it? So do they start using two decimal places, the next climate thrust perhaps being 1.49°C, then 1.48°C, and so on, just to prolong the agony of the inevitability that they’ll be found out for their barefaced lying.

    As for Attenborough, his motives are obvious. He was once a climate sceptic until he saw what happened to the BBC’s David Bellamy, a genuine scientist, who ‘came out’ as a sceptic and was promptly and unceremoniously sacked for his heresy. Attenborough couldn’t just let all that luverly lucre go to waste and with the competition out the way he announced himself as a ‘believer’ and mopped up all the money. A former controller in the BBC, he’s very familiar where all the money lies and just how to get at it.

    Degenerate old creep.

      • Latitude

        Not forgetting Global Cooling. That went well, didn’t it.

        Tragically, we sceptics are left wishing for precisely what we don’t want, the planet to start cooling, before we can sweep all this effing nonsense away.

        How many years, how much brain power, and how much money has been wasted on climate change that could have been put to good use elsewhere. Y’know, like saving lives, eradicating poverty, developing nuclear power etc. were it not for the slimy green scum.

      • “remember when we were all supposed to die at 300ppm

        and the famous 350.org”

        Yeah, 350ppm was supposed to be a breaking point. They said we shouldn’t exceed that. What is it now, about 410ppm? And we are having some of the mildest weather in memory.

        We just keep blowing by all those crisis thresholds and break points and no dire consequences ever appeared. It’s almost enough to make a person lose confidence in those dire predictions.

        The alarmists are crying wolf way too much. People tune it out after a while.

    • “what happened to the IPCC’s original claim the threshold was 3.0°C, then 2.5°C, then 2.0°C, then 1.5°C.”

      Well, the temperatures did not climb like projected so the IPCC is lowering their estimates so they don’t look like complete fools. They are trying to get ahead of the credibility curve.

      On top of that, the temperatures have been cooling for the last three years, so the IPCC may be making further downward adjustments in the future. They are almost to the point of adjusting themselves out of a climate crisis and out of business.

    • @HotScot.

      Thanks, I didn’t have the courage to type my similar conclusions, but it’s hard not see Attenbollocks & the entire BBC organisation as terminally degenerate.

      It’s a huge shame, because I’ve always loved his programs.
      However, while technically there has been huge progress in things like drone shots from the sky, time-delay sequences & much more, the scripts have become unremitting sermons of doom.

      And it’s completely unscientific & totally unjustified human-hating doom.
      The economist Julian L. Simon showed clearly how & why increasing human populations lead directly to increasing progress & prosperity in his 1998 book: The Ultimate Resource 2. A great read. More humans please.

      And far less of the dopy doomster Attenbooby, please.

      JD.

  7. One thing I’ve learned from from that show was that if it had explained the sinking of the Titanic is would said that itwas NOT sunk by an iceberg. It was sunk by “accelerated localised rising sea levels”.

    You’ve got an official US Govt explanation that the area around Isle de Jean Charles is sinking and that it’s been affected by man made attempts at drainage modification that has stopped silt renewal; https://earthshots.usgs.gov/earthshots/node/102#ad-image-2-0

    Despite this and NOAA’s data showing no accelerated sea level rise anywhere in the US, the show definitely said that was a cause of the loss of land at Isle de Jean Charles.

    Is it any wonder that there are climate change skeptics?

    • Proponents of “the Sea is Rising” who point to South Louisiana never seem to understand that South Louisiana, geologically, has been a sinking basin since at least the Jurassic period. (that’s why the Mississippi flows there) The marshlands were in balance for ages – the land subsided, but the river flooded every spring and added another inch or so of soil to everything. Now, with flood control measues instituted, the river no longer is allowed to flood, the land is never built up, and all of South Louisiana is slowly sinking under the waves. The only viable answer is to cut the levees and allow the river to flood again every spring – but that would mean removing most permanent structures from the area, and nobody seems willing to do that yet. So, it sinks a little bit more each year.

      • New Orleans was historically (much later than Jurassic in ’cene times) the more accessible place from Lake Pontchartrain, long way to row or sail up the river. There is a draft master plan, some reasonable science around as it is actually a real problem. I recently read a paper about making the diversions above the city where crevasses were common. Sediment supply is now a problem, too much kept upstream. Along with the usual hysteria (predicted fisheries crashes haven’t occurred, but give them time) it’s not certain if reason will reign even if anyone knows the best solution. Playing around with more splays to the Gulf may be best that can be done at least to give enough time to move upstream or understand the system better.

  8. Seeing as how the entire premise of “Climate Change” is based on faulty, unscientific, nonsense masquerading as unassailable fact. It sounds like something you would see on TV. Fantasy, that is what television and movies portray, remember that in the back of your mind while watching. The laws of physics do not apply to television stories, or the stories in the movies.
    If anybody can PROVE, using the scientific method, that CO2 is the cause of “Climate Change” (which is impossible, as we all know. The entire ecosystem of the planet would collapse without it…) then MAYBE, just MAYBE, I will entertain the thought of it being possible.
    Until then, CO2 caused “Climate Change” is nothing more than a fiction. Just like 90% of what you see on television.

  9. I recall was in full support of the coming ice age in the 1970’s, and he’s gone down hill ever since using his influential position at the BBC to sway opinion.

    It is time for you to retire David.

  10. A “call to arms” is a dangerous thing. People may take you seriously. And if those armed people come to believe you have defrauded them, they will very likely point their arms at you.

  11. Atten-moron says, “our greatest threat in thousands of years”.

    Well, 1,000 years ago, the Muslim invasion of southern Europe was seen as the great threat to Christianity and its hold on the Holy Lands. The Crusades were born.

    So now, Climate Change is the Libtards Crusades of the new Millennium. Go figure.

    • At 92, Sir David is old enough to remember that the REAL “greatest threat” to the UK since 1066, occurred in 1939. To compare the possibility of slightly warmer temperatures to Nazi bombs falling on you is stupid in the extreme.

      • I was thinking the same thing. Would Attenborough really prefer to go back to the early 1940s to live out the remainder of his days rather than face the imagined but yet unseen horrors of climate change? I really doubt it. I think that even he knows that calling climate change the “greatest threat” in modern times is pure hyperbole.

  12. If you want to sell some nasty tasting crap have it pitched by loveable old grandpa. Maybe Ole Dave can get the Jell-O pudding account from Bill Cosby. Government broadcasters have got to go folks. There’s a built in conflict of interest that’s inimical to a democratic society.

    • But the MSM in the US isn’t Government owned, and they are just as bad. It appears that journalistic “standards” aren’t dependent on Government ownership.

      • Good Point Jim. I would add that the increasingly oligarchic ownership structure of the US media makes it very much susceptible to “soft” government control. Wonder why Al Sharpton had an expensive platform on MSNBC that nobody actually watched? It was baked into the cake when NBC/Universal was sold to Comcast. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus expressed certain concerns and they were addressed with assurances from the mega media conglomerate. We can probably find similar things in the recent Disney deal.

      • Retired_Engineer_Jim

        The MSM everywhere is fighting the same battle, the internet. The BBC is no different, and they have all lurched into sensationalism to justify their existence.

        The BBC has a huge number of employees, it is, after all, welfare for the Arts, so throwing all those poor Thespians into unemployment is unthinkable. And the government do not want those people to hit the dole queues.

        Then there’s the management jobs with all those juicy salaries and gold plated pensions, and all they have to do to maintain them is veer ever more left.

        Job done.

        • “Then there’s the management jobs with all those juicy salaries and gold plated pensions”

          Gilt-plated, since the BBC pension fund is 100% (IIRC) invested in green enterprises.

      • Conservative (internet) journalists from Australia were detained at LAX and one was sent home (deported) because they made Comedy Central look bad (showed their lies, malfeasance, and improper editing), and Comedy Central told immigration they were fearful that the journalist was going to cause problems.

        See “ari yemini”, and what the government did to him at Comedy Central request.

  13. Did this show ever define what they mean by “climate change”? I see no discussion of long term trends, averages of like measurements, or data set analysis. I don’t think a discussion of climate can be useful if it is all about weather related events that have always been part of our lives.
    It is time to demand these producers of “climate” propaganda define there terms and show how their discussion pertains to that definition.

    • Actually defining Climate Change would be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Why in the world would they ever do that?

      What the Murdering Marxist Malthusians are doing by having ‘Climate Change’ mean anything they say it means is a logical, rational decision on their part. It’s a good choice for advancing Marxist Utopian nonsense.

      Oh by the way, the True Believers in a Marxist Utopia are being played by the elites who have chosen that system to stay at top of the heap of humanity. The elites certainly don’t believe in a Marxist Utopia. It’s just another tool like Climate Change.

  14. Dramatic action will be done but by natural, long-wave climate cycles after their current (pause-related) turning points that are largely ignored or assumed minimal in the business of biased model construction.

  15. The pace and intensity of the alarmist movement are increasing exponentially. This programme feels like part of a coordinated effort to bury us all in a relentless torrent of propaganda. It’s working up to some sort of climax. Climate Armageddon, perhaps?

    Interesting times ahead.

    • +10 on interesting. Fighting the Green ISIS will be challenging, fun, and gratifying. As usual we start from behind but damn effective so far.

      • I think the public switched off years ago. It’s now a battle of brainless politicians who believe virtue signaling is awesome; and the ones who want to use CAGW as a vehicle to bring down western civilization.

  16. The most telling point about this dire documentary is its poor quality. They had the deep pockets and media expertise of the BBC behind them, they presumably had their pick of ‘climate scientists;, and they had an all but guaranteed huge initial audience, and this was their best effort! It will help weaken their cause as newcomers decide to dig into the story for themselves, and old hands take the opportunity to expose the hyperbole and speciousness of the case for alarm and panic over our impact on climate variation. So, in the end, there may be a net benefit from this sorry piece of work.

  17. Olllld Greens, who are nearing their human expiration dates tend to desperately flail-about … looking for some “everlasting” meaning of the lives. Atheists like Attenborough and Gov. Jerry Brown have gone completely off the deep end (of sanity) in their Dying Days with classic “end of times” doomsday predictions. I would like to remind them that the world will get on just fine after their passing. THEY are the ones dying! The earth lives on. Same as it ever was, same as it EVER was. Same. As. It. Ever. Was.

    Water dissolving and water removing
    There is water at the bottom of the ocean
    Under the water, carry the water
    Remove the water at the bottom of the ocean

  18. That clip of the president saying ‘it’s a hoax’ will come back to haunt them. The president will be shown to be right and the makers of this farce will have egg all over their faces.

  19. Climate – Change the Facts…

    There is no empirical evidence to support the CAGW hypothesis. Flawed computer models have no value whatsoever. Furthermore, the climate has been both colder (LIA, frozen Thames and Hudson) and hotter (MWP, dairy farming in Greenland) within human recorded history. These are facts – established centuries before the industrial revolution. The cycle extends further into the past – the dark ages and the Roman warm period. We are simply at the midway point between the highs and lows, thankfully warming!

    Furthermore, there is empirical evidence that CO2 has a negligible effect on the climate. The CAGW hypothesis relies on a narrow view of radiative physics, where IR radiation is absorbed in 3 narrow bands, completely ignoring the dominant effect of water vapour and the mechanics of conduction and convection. Check the evidence – the climate of the arid deserts has not altered in recorded history, where the effect of water vapour is not present. If CO2 was the “control knob” of climate you would see the climate of deserts converge with that of the humid tropics – but this has not happened.

    We do not need less CO2, we need more. It increases plant growth, which is essential for all animal life on Earth.

    I am staggered that the CAGW hypothesis continues to perpetuate, influencing our young and uneducated to break the law and seeking to divert trillions of dollars away from human development. It is the greatest scientific fraud in history and has cost trillions, affected billions and killed millions. Why? Follow the money…..

  20. It was a polemic. Largely made from cherry picking natural disasters. For example, houses being destroyed by forest fires (which just made me question the wisdom of building houses in forests).

    It was also careful to state that no individual event can be attributed to climate, but climate change is making these events more likely, and things will be really bad by 2050 (or so).

    It showed a number of global temperature records, but these looked like surface records. They did not go into the key mid tropospheric measurement. I don’t think there were any satellite records, or talk about the “Pause” (which has been a recent contested point in the literature).

    The programme started bleating-on about tipping points, and gave methane release from the tundra as a possible example. There was some claim about methane being 40x more potent than CO2, but no mention about methane quickly oxidising in the presence of oxygen and sunlight.

    By the time the programme moved onto schoolchildren protesting, I had lost interest and started checking holiday plans for the summer with the programme running in the background. That summed it up for me: it was boring, nothing new to say.

    • “no mention about methane quickly oxidising in the presence of oxygen and sunlight.”

      Or being consumed by bacteria as it emerges from underground. Or of the negative feedback of increased bushiness shading the ground and slowing the emergence of methane..

    • Jordan-

      Actually, it is my understanding that methane is not quickly oxidized in the atmosphere, In fact, back in the ’80’s, when I was working in automotive emission studies, it was considered a non-reactive [in the atmosphere] hydrocarbon.

      • old engineer-

        As a fellow engineer, I can understand an assumption of methane as a non-reactive hydrocarbon in the atmosphere for certain purposes. For example, considering the safety implications of accumulation of methane in enclosed spaces. But assumptions have their limitations.

        I gather methane has a estimated atmospheric residence time of 12 years. This is sub-climatic timescales, and means it sits in the same category as other transient residents, such as water vapour. However the climate bedwetters claim that higher atmospheric temperature will support more water vapour, so they have way to talk-around its short residence time.

        Not so with methane, there is no talk-around to claim its 40x potency can be sustained in climate time scales. That’s why I say the part of the show which suggested tundra burps could be an example of possible tipping points was #Attembollocks.

  21. Years ago the BBC changed one of its founding principles. It no longer believes in educating but in indoctrinating. David Attenborough signed up and lost his independence. The, then far more popular, and real scientist, David Bellamy did not sign up and lost his platform with the BBC and has never been used by them again.

    In the last Attenborough program that I watched in one instalment he showed how bleached corals on the Barrier Reef were being recolonised by the new corals and in the next instalment claimed that global warming was destroying the Barrier Reef forever.

    • On the balance of evidence, if David Attenborough says it, it is probably untrue. If David Bellamy says it, it might be true.

      Checking something David A says is a search for confirmation that is isn’t true and to what extent it is an exaggeration or outright lie. The latest One Planet on penguins, albatrosses and walruses is a tour-de-farce. Checking something David B says is a search for confirmation that it is or isn’t true, and why that is so given our current understanding.

      The latter search holds more value as a use of my time.

  22. “Destruction of our familiar, natural world and our uniquely rich human culture.” Who could disagree with that?

  23. They can’t even stop the Russian special ops teams in London operations much less global warming.

  24. Atty is really old now, and doesn’t get outside much to sense that the weather is the same as it always was. Still gets his newspapers delivered, actually believes the crap written in them. Stays home dictating his talking scripts for the highest bidder his agent has found. Pay is good compared to most 92 yr olds.

  25. I believe Deadly Climate Boffins themselves are desperately battling d*nile. It is slowly dawning on them that nothing is actually going to be done no matter what they rail about. The hysteria, a 10yr end-of-world deadline and the speedup in recycling old papers on consequences is a ‘tell’.

    The return of the “Climate Blues” epidemic is in progress. The first one, because of the “Pause, wiped out the careers of the of the fragile campaigners and we are seeing it again because they know in their hearts nothing will be done to halt CO2 and they fear nothing bad will happen. They are throwing everything they’ve got to get some policy going to take credit for saving the planet by keeping it cool when its going to be just fine anyway and their gig will be over – a wasted career, a wasted life and $trillions of their fellow citizens money thrown away for their legacy. “What did your daddy do during the Climate Boondoggle?” Watch for big defections as the stress mounts!

  26. Attenbourough is just a puppet. The real problem is the public broadcaster – the Beeeb. It’s bad enough that such rubbish is produced – but paid for by the British Public? There’s a petition out for the BBC to be held to account.

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/234797

    Today’s PBS, which derives from a heritage of balance, isn’t much better. It’s responsibility is to INFORM the public – not to MISINFORM the public. We can’t stop such rubbish from be exploited by commercial operations, but by the publically-funded broadcaster?

    PBS’s funding should be cut, with what remains contingent upon impartiality and balance. If PBS can’t abide by these basic standards, it is easily replaced by countless commercial broadcaasters who provide the same rubbish without picking the public’s pocket.

  27. Any program that has Attenborough as its star is instantly ignored by those who recall his comments re the EU Referendum here in the UK.
    He said after the result went against his preferred outcome.
    “The common people should never have been asked to decide anything about the EU because they lack the knowledge and intelligence ” he went on to opine.
    “Such decisions should be left to the politicians as they have the facts and know what is best”
    The politicians he had in mind were Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, David Lammy and similarly dumb politicians.
    That list of MPs are. incompetent, uneducated, innumerate, and ignorant.
    That is who Attenborough regards as worthy arbiters of Britain’s future interests.

    • I think it is unfair to apply “uneducated” to Theresa May, or indeed to David Lammy. Agree with the rest 🙂

      So Attenborough is a meritocrat, is he? He must be ignoring the long road to universal suffrage in Britain.

      Personally, I consider myself well educated, and I would love for everyone to think the way I do, but I also believe in democracy, currently a shambles in Britain, with Parliament (and the PM) frustrating the expressed will of the people. I also think it is very easy to dismiss unfairly the common sense of the common people.

  28. griff: “Climate skepticism is a minority, US centric viewpoint.”

    Okay, I did a search about what the views are in the UK.
    http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39251/bsa35_climate_change.pdf
    http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-29/transport/belief-in-climate-change.aspx
    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-climate-change-real-accept-majority-global-warming-poll-finds-a7909841.html
    Some of these are old, some new. Lots of detail there. Bottom line, UK is mostly believers.
    Whether it’s the most important concern to them is a different question; it is a concern.

    The question nobody ever asks is “Is the cure to this ‘problem’ worse than the ‘problem’?”
    How much would you pay to fix it? Everybody wants a RR until they see the price (maybe they don’t want a RR, but you know what I mean).

    For comparison, here are tables of the 2008 Gallup Poll responses and 2015 Pew Research Center’s responses by country.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country

  29. As a Brit, I have to agree with Griff. I would do anything
    absolutely anything to prevent this countries temperatures rising by one degree.

    When we get back from our holiday in florida I intend to glue myself to something in
    an attempt (no doubt futile) to raise peoples awareness of the dangers of one degree

    I just pray that I can survive the heated hell that is florida

  30. Let us not forget that the “best scientific experts” (according to the BBC) who in 2006 advised the BBC to abandon impartiality in its reporting of climate change and who were therefore responsible for David Attenborough’s unintentionally hilarious programme were:
    Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
    Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
    Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
    Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
    Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
    Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
    Trevor Evans, US Embassy
    Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
    Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
    Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
    Claire Foster, Church of England
    Saleemul Huq, IIED
    Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
    Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
    Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
    Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
    Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
    Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
    Matthew Farrow, CBI
    Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
    Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
    Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
    Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
    Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
    Joe Smith, The Open University
    Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
    Anita Neville, E3G
    Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
    Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
    Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

  31. To my Canadian neighbor ferd berple,
    Fear not, the Trump train is headed north.
    Trudeau will soon lose his other eyebrow.

  32. The programme is simply propaganda. There were no verifiable facts used and Hanson was the prime “pet” climate scientist! Every line of the script could have been rebutted by good scientific information, but there was not a single shred of doubt expressed that ANY of the statements were not 100% accurate and true! Science, no propaganda pure and simple.

  33. I made a complaint about bias in the programme due to the lack of balance, here is the email response in full. Pay particular attention to the fourth paragraph starting “The vast majority…”

    “Thank you for contacting us about ‘Climate Change – the Facts’ and your concerns surrounding the accuracy of the programme.

    Climate Change – the Facts represented the work of a wide range of scientists from the UK and US, as well as other countries, demonstrating the scale and scope of scientific endeavour and thinking around this complex subject.

    Their interviews were based on their research, describing what it has revealed and in some instances expressing personal reactions based on their deep insights. The overall content of the programme was also based on peer reviewed scientific research, which was rigorously checked by an independent scientific consultant, a leading academic at University College London. Inevitably in a 60 minute programme there were some subject areas which could not be addressed in greater detail or which we did not feature.

    The vast majority of climate scientists agree on the fundamentals of human induced climate change and this was reflected in the film. As climate change is accepted as happening, the BBC no longer seeks to ‘balance’ the debate by interviewing those who do not agree with this position.

    There are many complexities in communicating climate change to a mainstream audience; the film sought to balance potentially alarming scenarios with scientific analysis on attribution (the extent to which extreme weather events and other phenomena such as sea level rise can be linked to climate change), climate modelling and projections of what may happen in the future (in which inevitably there are many uncertainties) and actions aimed at reducing carbon emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change going forward. While Sir David Attenborough drew on his own experience of reporting on this subject over many years, he also balanced a sense of urgency with optimism that there are ways of addressing the serious issues we undoubtedly face.

    We hope this helps to address your concerns and we thank you for taking the time to contact us. “

    Kind Regards

    BBC Complaints Team
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Comments are closed.