Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The BBC has admitted their embarrassment at having to fly a reporter to see climate brat Greta Thunberg, because they didn’t have time to travel by boat or train.
BBC put presenter on a plane to interview Greta Thunberg
PA Media
Sun 29 Dec 2019 10.38 AEDTSarah Sands, editor of BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, admits it ‘felt awkward’
Putting a presenter on a flight to Sweden to meet climate activist Greta Thunberg “felt awkward”, the editor of BBC Radio 4’s Today programme has admitted.
The 16-year-old campaigner, who was a guest editor on a special edition of the show, avoids air travel because of its environmental impact.
The BBC sent presenter Mishal Husain on a return flight to Stockholm to interview her.
Programme editor Sarah Sands told the Sunday Times: “We did discuss that among ourselves. It felt awkward but we did not have the time for trains or boats.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/28/bbc-put-presenter-on-a-plane-to-interview-greta-thunberg
I don’t understand why the BBC feels so uncomfortable. Extinction Rebellion tells us it is OK for celebrities to fly, because they are trapped by the system. And Greta flew at least four boat crew across the Atlantic to help sail her non-recyclable plastic boat, to avoid a single transatlantic flight for herself.
So plenty of climate hypocrisy all around. I doubt the BBC’s climate hypocrisy really stands out from everyone elses.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If the BBC had managed to fly a hot air ballon successfully to Sweden, then they would have been hero’s. Instead, they probably had to endure a lecture from Saint Greta the Great that went something like “How dare you” fly to come see me. The madness continues…
Hot air balloons are typically heated with propane from an on-board cylinder.
Maybe they could have eaten a huge meal of bangers and beans and lit their farts to heat the bag? Or harnessed Santa’s reindeer? Or a unicorn?
Nope. No way around it, even their and our food requires substantial fossil fuel expenditures to provide both the quantity and variety of all the things we enjoy for meals today. Unless of course they want Soylent Green.
It is not hypocrisy really. It’s simply lies all the way down.
The climate change scam… Lies built on top of more lies, ad nauseum.
If you saw Soylent Green then you know the “meat” was processed in huge industrial machines. So, no. Soylent is not “green”.
Btw – It was set in 2020.
Soylent green is people!
I saw a green VW Beetle on the highway one time.
The driver had a sick sense of humor.
The license plate was “SOYLNT”
Been a while, but wasn’t it 2022. so still 2 years to go and we’re not far from it if the lefty/greens ever get their way.
How about a hydrogen filled Zeppelin? Hydrogen powers the Sun and the Stars. They could claim they used a ‘solar-powered’ mode of transportation and have Obamasms of delight while thinking about their Kyoto and Paris accords. Worked OK for a while for the Hindenburg.
They could have told all kinds of lies just like Greta’s handlers do. Truth be told, carbon in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere and its energy content came from the sun.
I would say hydrogen is the fuel but gravity powers the fusion process.
Hydrogen is not a naturally occurring element. You have to produce it, usually by breaking up water with electricity.
Hydrogen is indeed a naturally occurring element. Hydrogen is about 74% of the baryonic mass-fraction of the universe, helium is about 24%, and the remaining 2% is everything else. If you count atoms instead of mass, hydrogen steps up to 92%.
But hydrogen is very light, and very reactive. On our oxygen-filled planet, a lot of it sits around in water. Some of it gets attached to carbon, and so-on. Hydrogen – atomic and molecular – is very common in space. We just don’t live on a planet where it naturally sits around in free form.
Good response because, yes, Urederra is mistaken. In addition, molecular hydrogen is produced with the Earth and some is released to the surface, particularly by volcanoes but also associated with some earthquakes. It is also produced by fermentation and within animal guts.
I am sure that Urederra meant was that “free” (not combined with any other element) hydrogen does not exist in nature due to it’s reactivity. It combines very readily with C, O, etc., making it necessary to separate it before using it as a fuel.
Thank the Lord! I worked in a refinery and experienced a hydrogen fire. Notice I didn’t say I “saw” a hydrogen fire. They are invisible. Terrifying!
Could it be that you have just proven Harlan Ellison’s aphorism to be true?
“The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.”
” hero’s”
Hero’s is possessive, heroes, is plural.
It matters not how the “virtual signaling” elite get their business done. They are forced by the system to do everything ASAP. Does their message change if they take longer to deliver it? No, they just want to get it done so that they can bask in the riches and time afterward.
No one should begin to think that Greta will ever have to really work during the rest of her life. She (and her activist, child-abusing parents) has been lavishly compensated for her public exposure and use as a tool for the AGW scam, via G. Soros funding.
And Hot Air Balloons? The air gets hot with the sun? pffft…
I am surprised she allowed herself to be interviewed in the circumstances. Hypocrisy at work again. She just loves the limelight.
Oh the hypocrisy,it burns!
It would only be a problem if they actually believed in global warming.
What’s wrong with a video conference or letting local media interview her and sharing the video. Lots of Swedes speak English.
All native Swedes speak English. It is a compulsory subject in school.
Though perhaps not very well, as Greta’s talk about “putting people against a wall” shows. It means something different in Swedish.
Does ‘You Stole My Dreams’ mean something else in Swedish?
Are we sure we can trust this muppet?
How dare you?
I am fluent in Swedish, and it does not mean something different – that was good try by the MSM to ‘splain away what untouchable St Greta actually had in mind:
” ställ de mot väggen och lägg an” – put them against the wall and take aim….
thanks tetris,
too many people want to protect CAgw meme;
too many people want to pimp out the little girl;
and way way too many more want to protect the constipated little girl.
She has got to be getting near the point where she sees that she is part of the scam, and that she is taking her cut. At that point, if we want to be nice, we can start calling her a ‘climate worker’.
I speak American. That’s English with a western Appalachian timbre and manner of expression. Swedish? Not so much. In fact, none. Long gone grand_folks would be horrified. ‘ajdå’ ??
What does it mean in Swedish?
I wondered when I heard it if she meant something more like, “Putting people in a corner”…as might be said/done with unruly children in the U.S.
No.
Even the MSM’s attempt to spin the meaning failed. The meaning they tried hard to hide has the same result in all languages; “put against the wall” where the “or else” clause becomes front and center active.
Hate to tell ya, but those stage lights, cameras, mics and servers are all connected by WIRES, and run by electricity which has to be generated somehow. So this tiresome sock puppet’s “interview” is actually pretty carbon heavy, y’know?
Anybody’d have to be dumber than a rock not to see through this rolling publicity stunt.
They have solar panels in the studio that are powered by the Kleig lights.
When I want to travel a long way I always take a re-badged Rothschild yacht out of Monaco. (I got rich sitting in the street waiting to be discovered by a PR magnate who is friends with my family of actors and performers.)
It’s OK to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, folks! It will be found in the food you eat next year!
not a sniff eh…@400ppm lol stop it…yer killin me, I suppose you have numbers to back your “effects” on health of CO2 fed veggies? LOL dumb ass… they use CO2 generators to grow healthy food cheers…chuggin a glass of CO2 contaminated spirit as we speak
mmmmm Cheers Rock
It is good that the film crew recognized that they were guilty. Better late than never. The hypocrisy would have driven lesser men to drink.
Mosher will be along soon to prove your point.
.he will a stound wit logic an grammar .noteven
Luckily, it is just 1 year and 5 days before she turns 18 and thus will be too old to be the Child High Priestess of Doom an d Gloom. Perhaps her handlers will then claim that due to her Asperger’s, she can remain the Child High Priestess of Doom and Gloom for another 5 years. This is enough time to get enough useful idiots to sign on for “climate catastrophe/emergency” declaration and the marshal law this entails. In a state of emergency, where some existential threat is there (in this case, one that has not even been defined nor scrutinised due to intimidation) , all resources of the state (money) are at the disposal of the state to combat the “threat.” Freedoms ALWAYS falls by the wayside. For example, climate “deniers” are more than likely to be jailed, perhaps executed.
I’d suggest that most BBC crews are “awkward”. Greta is certainly awkward and I’m sure the resulting program was also awkward.
I imagine the plane wouldn’t have flown if they weren’t on it.
Not.
Perhaps all the passengers rationalized their choice to fly that way. Though its more likely most of them didn’t care.
Why care about nonsense? There is no greenhouse effect. There is no CAGW. There may be a grand solar minimum coming.
Chaswarnertoo I’m aware there is no CAGW. But its funny to point out when greens who are allegedly concerned about global warming behave as if there is no CAGW as well.
Isn’t that the object of the exercise? Everyone is supposed to stop flying, but then there will be no plane for BBC reporters to visit Greta in her cave.
Airlines schedule flights based on traffic, the more bookings, the more flights are scheduled.
They also schedule which plane they are going to fly based how many people have booked a particular flight. That is, the more bookings, the bigger the plane.
Your attempt to excuse the hypocrisy of these reporters is as feeble as the excuses given by Extinction Rebellion.
Airlines try to fill all seats of a flight. empty seats means less money for the airline. So, unless there were no other passengers booking flights for that day, those seats would have been taken by someone else (there’s usually a number of people who fly “standby” – IE without making a prior reservation – for various reasons, including missing a flight or being bumped from an overbooked flight or just because they can get a seat cheaper that way as airlines are willing to charge less in order to fill last-minute empty seats), or else the airline would have used a smaller plane (as MarkW points out) that had less seats if there are too many unfilled seats for a larger plane.
So while it is hypocritical to preach no flying to others will taking advantage of flight for yourself (either directly by filling a seat on a flight, or indirectly by having others fill seats in order for you to avoid doing so yourself), the fact is the BBC folks flying or not is such a marginal amount of the worlds flying “carbon footprint” as to be meaningless. But then the whole “carbon footprint” nonsense is meaningless. But for those who believe in it and try to foist it upon others (such as the BBC folks) they deserve to have their hypocrisy pointed out at every opportunity.
“Ms Sands said: ‘Greta is not actually judgmental towards individuals, accepting that other people will not all conform to her high standards and asking only for people to do what they can.'”
ALL HAIL GRETA THE MERCIFUL!
Geez, these BBC fools act like Greta was going to turn ’em into toads or something. Maybe wish them into the cornfield like Bill Mumys’ character in The Twilight Zone episode “It’s a Good Life”. Pathetic….
A BBC film crew is not the only one following her. She is being followed by a crew from Hulu and has been since she started her “crusade”.
I found a link;
https://deadline.com/2019/12/greta-thunberg-documentary-hulu-greta-climate-crisis-b-reel-films-nathan-grossman-1202810111/
Who recalls of Bertrand Piccard and his promesses for a full mode solar aviation within 5 years? In 2013 he was on about all world news outlets. Solar Impulse, anyone ?
How come, why is he in a total radio-silence mode now when his potentially ideal client was desperate for lifts across the pond and elsewhere ?
Maybe that is why solar isn’t really viable at large scale energy production. If it can barely fly that Solar Impulse solar powered airplane with one pilot and has to navigate around the weather and clouds and maybe not fly for days on end, then that should really say something about large scale solar farms. Extremely low power density per m2, high cost to install with a declining output of about 1+% per year, not to mention decommissioning all this junk toxic waste in 20-25 years…or less.
Just think if the world had gone small scale modular next generation atomic power in todays low interest rate environment. We would be well on our way to increasing economic growth bigly, which we can still do if we engage this, as well as the other elephant in the room, infrastructure development and replacement. This why the democrats will be thrown out on their ear, because they are too busy making a mountain out of a molehill. Swing voters aren’t stupid when they were really hoping that all parties to Gov’t would make the economy the priority.
you are not supposed to remember the nutters and con merchants as they drift in and out of fame/notoriety. The media pump up the stories and report them as facts and no-one is to question the reporting or then bother to go back for any kind of verification.
It took them 16 months to fly around the world in their solar plane (9 March 2015 to 26 July 2016) – a feat that commercial fossil-fueled flights could accomplish in less than 3 days.
Apparently they’re concentrating on unmanned high-altitude solar aircraft.
This may have some merit in that if such a sturdy solar powered aircraft could effectively hover in a small geographic footprint above the weather at 60,000 feet for e.g. then it could serve many other applications such as remote sensing (for weather, climate and GIS applications) and perhaps as a cell phone tower in the sky at lower bandwidths. It would probably have to absorb local water vapour from the atmosphere and use its solar power to manufacture hydrogen/oxygen to power small jet/rocket engines for thrust to operate at that altitude 24/7/365. Maybe the constellation of small cube sat cell tech will render this idea obsolete before it even starts, although would be interesting to see local competition from a hovering solar platform above the weather.
The only awkward thing in that whole interview was that little twit – Greta
JPP
I haven’t flown anywhere this year, I am ready to be paid my carbon credit certificates for saving the planet by all the carbon polluting climate haters of the UN…will my Pay Pal account do?
Arffffffffffffffffffff !
Yes, I think I must be due some also, but somehow I imagine that the system of credits has been modelled on the Diode. 🙂
It’s been over two decades since the last time I flew. Where’s my carbon credits graft money?
Personally I am more worried about the waste of my TV Licence money used to send BBC personel on pointless trips.
Has the BBC thrown away all their phones? What is wrong with an old-fashioned call? Or video conference? I guess it is cheaper too.
@Peter,
The Radio 4 program will have been organized at the behest of a public relations agency acting for the interests around Greta. You may notice if you ave been following the spectacle that Greta has nothing to say outside the script she is given plus the programs producers will have to agree the questions and topics with Gretas handlers beforehand. A video or audio conference makes it much less easy to coordinate those activities.
“A video or audio conference makes it much less easy to coordinate those activities.”
Actually that should make it easier. Send the script, read it back. Simples.
And if the interviewer veers off script, the interviewee can fake technical difficulties to avoid the difficult/unexpected questions
Mainstream media need to wise up a bit and stop hiding behind “the science” and a troubled young adult in the obvious effort to avoid any serious public scrutiny. They seem to have no problem digging through President Trumps trash and “fact checking” yet are part and parcel of promoting an obvious public relations campaign and giving the backroom players behind Greta a free pass. Surely hardball questioning of the shadowy NGOs involved in this PR exercise and the money flows between them are in the British TV Taxpayers interest?
She is young, that much is true. As for being an adult, not so much.
At 16+ years old she can no longer be described as a kid despite appearances used by her public relations handlers to make her look younger. In most western countries you can leave public education at 16 and Greta is currently not a pupil in any school despite her “school strikes”.
Fortunately, the law, albeit an ass, disagrees with you.
She’s at the age between kid and adult where the law, albeit an ass, varies greatly as to what adult responsibilities she is allowed, depending on where in the world she is.
As John pointed out, in many countries, she (legally) can quit school and enter the (adult) working world (assuming she could find an employer that would hire her). In some countries she can even get married. In the Congo she can legal drink alcoholic beverages. In Bangledesh, Egypt, Iran, Russia, and a few other countries she could volunteer for military service (possibly, depending on any gender restrictions). etc.
She will be 17 yo on Thursday. Do they put candles (paraffin) on birthday cakes in Sweden?
They should only communicate with her via the Internet. The technology is already in place. No one has to travel anywhere.
The BBC reporters (especially the environmental ones such as Horrorbin) all have enormous carbon footprints. They are permanently flying around the world (with their directors and film crew etc). Hypocrisy doesn’t come into it.
Hypocrisy does come in to it. Hypocrisy infuses it from top to bottom. Hypocrisy is the air they breathe, the water they swim in, the waste they excrete. The amazing thing is that they have enough sense left to notice the ethical disconnect and feel ‘uncomfortable’. Maybe there is an unextinguished ember of humanity that can be salvaged.
How dare they!!!!
So the BBC could not arrange an on-line interview for a RADIO programme in this high tech century?
Climate crooks have at least understood one basic thing :
– the best way to avoid all this climate change behavioral harassment is to embrace climate church.
“we did not have the time for trains or boats”
There are ferries five days a week from Immingham (just northeast of London) to Gothenburg. It takes slightly more than 24 hours. Trains every hour from Gothenburg to Stockholm. Every second train is an express that takes 3 hours, every second a slow train that takes 5 hours. 36 hours each way is ample.
If that is the way of the future then the BBC should embrace it now.
What was wrong with Skype?