Awkward: BBC Crew Flew to Interview Climate Brat Greta Thunberg

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 AEDT

Sarah 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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
123 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Earthling2
December 28, 2019 10:07 pm

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…

Reply to  Earthling2
December 29, 2019 12:54 am

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.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 29, 2019 9:27 am

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.

Jim G
Reply to  F.LEGHORN in Alabama
December 29, 2019 1:55 pm

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”

John Endicott
Reply to  F.LEGHORN in Alabama
December 30, 2019 5:24 am

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.

Buckeyebob
Reply to  Earthling2
December 29, 2019 3:52 am

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.

Scissor
Reply to  Buckeyebob
December 29, 2019 6:17 am

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.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Buckeyebob
December 29, 2019 7:34 am

I would say hydrogen is the fuel but gravity powers the fusion process.

Urederra
Reply to  Buckeyebob
December 29, 2019 10:04 am

Hydrogen is not a naturally occurring element. You have to produce it, usually by breaking up water with electricity.

Ellen
Reply to  Urederra
December 29, 2019 12:06 pm

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.

Scissor
Reply to  Ellen
December 29, 2019 12:31 pm

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.

Sal Minella
Reply to  Ellen
December 29, 2019 1:20 pm

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.

Trebla
Reply to  Ellen
January 1, 2020 5:49 am

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!

Joe
Reply to  Urederra
December 29, 2019 9:32 pm

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.”

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Earthling2
December 29, 2019 8:12 am

” hero’s”

Hero’s is possessive, heroes, is plural.

Reply to  Earthling2
December 29, 2019 8:27 am

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.

Lou
Reply to  Earthling2
December 30, 2019 12:34 am

And Hot Air Balloons? The air gets hot with the sun? pffft…

layor nala
December 28, 2019 10:09 pm

I am surprised she allowed herself to be interviewed in the circumstances. Hypocrisy at work again. She just loves the limelight.

Robert
December 28, 2019 10:21 pm

Oh the hypocrisy,it burns!

Hivemind
December 28, 2019 10:22 pm

It would only be a problem if they actually believed in global warming.

Pcman999
December 28, 2019 10:25 pm

What’s wrong with a video conference or letting local media interview her and sharing the video. Lots of Swedes speak English.

tty
Reply to  Pcman999
December 29, 2019 1:45 am

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.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  tty
December 29, 2019 5:13 am

Does ‘You Stole My Dreams’ mean something else in Swedish?

Are we sure we can trust this muppet?

Scissor
Reply to  Craig from Oz
December 29, 2019 6:21 am

How dare you?

tetris
Reply to  tty
December 29, 2019 6:55 am

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….

DonM
Reply to  tetris
December 30, 2019 9:14 am

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’.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  tty
December 29, 2019 8:33 am

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’ ??

Reply to  tty
December 29, 2019 9:14 am

Though perhaps not very well, as Greta’s talk about “putting people against a wall” shows. It means something different in Swedish.

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.

ATheoK
Reply to  tty
December 29, 2019 4:50 pm

“tty December 29, 2019 at 1:45 am
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.”

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.

Goldrider
Reply to  Pcman999
December 29, 2019 8:03 am

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.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 29, 2019 9:34 am

They have solar panels in the studio that are powered by the Kleig lights.

December 28, 2019 10:25 pm

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.)

RockyRoad
December 28, 2019 10:26 pm

It’s OK to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, folks! It will be found in the food you eat next year!

Lou
Reply to  RockyRoad
December 30, 2019 12:39 am

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

Richard
December 28, 2019 10:35 pm

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.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Richard
December 28, 2019 11:35 pm

Mosher will be along soon to prove your point.

Scissor
Reply to  philincalifornia
December 29, 2019 6:25 am

.he will a stound wit logic an grammar .noteven

High Treason
December 28, 2019 10:44 pm

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.

Scissor
Reply to  High Treason
December 29, 2019 6:31 am

Awkward Lank
December 28, 2019 10:48 pm

I’d suggest that most BBC crews are “awkward”. Greta is certainly awkward and I’m sure the resulting program was also awkward.

trafamadore
December 28, 2019 10:50 pm

I imagine the plane wouldn’t have flown if they weren’t on it.

Not.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 29, 2019 12:38 am

Why care about nonsense? There is no greenhouse effect. There is no CAGW. There may be a grand solar minimum coming.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  trafamadore
December 29, 2019 2:40 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  trafamadore
December 29, 2019 7:00 am

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.

John Endicott
Reply to  trafamadore
December 30, 2019 5:44 am

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.

David Gadziala
December 28, 2019 10:56 pm

“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….

Patrick MJD
December 28, 2019 11:21 pm

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”.

Flight Level
December 28, 2019 11:39 pm

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 ?

Earthling2
Reply to  Flight Level
December 29, 2019 12:00 am

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.

Andy in Epsom
Reply to  Flight Level
December 29, 2019 12:04 am

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.

John Endicott
Reply to  Flight Level
December 30, 2019 6:34 am

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.

Earthling2
Reply to  John Endicott
December 30, 2019 11:51 am

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.

December 28, 2019 11:46 pm

The only awkward thing in that whole interview was that little twit – Greta

JPP

Bemused Bill
December 28, 2019 11:47 pm

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?

Fanakapan
Reply to  Bemused Bill
December 29, 2019 9:45 am

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. 🙂

John Endicott
Reply to  Bemused Bill
December 30, 2019 6:24 am

It’s been over two decades since the last time I flew. Where’s my carbon credits graft money?

Ben Vorlich
December 28, 2019 11:56 pm

Personally I am more worried about the waste of my TV Licence money used to send BBC personel on pointless trips.

Peter
December 29, 2019 12:24 am

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.

John Culhane
Reply to  Peter
December 29, 2019 1:35 am

@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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John Culhane
December 29, 2019 8:19 am

“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.

John Endicott
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 30, 2019 6:20 am

And if the interviewer veers off script, the interviewee can fake technical difficulties to avoid the difficult/unexpected questions

John Culhane
December 29, 2019 12:26 am

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?

comment image

comment image

Patrick MJD
Reply to  John Culhane
December 29, 2019 1:25 am

She is young, that much is true. As for being an adult, not so much.

John Culhane
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 29, 2019 1:54 am

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”.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  John Culhane
December 29, 2019 2:13 am

Fortunately, the law, albeit an ass, disagrees with you.

John Endicott
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 30, 2019 6:42 am

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.

Scissor
Reply to  John Culhane
December 29, 2019 6:43 am

She will be 17 yo on Thursday. Do they put candles (paraffin) on birthday cakes in Sweden?

William Haas
December 29, 2019 12:29 am

They should only communicate with her via the Internet. The technology is already in place. No one has to travel anywhere.

December 29, 2019 12:53 am

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.

Richard
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 29, 2019 7:24 am

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.

toorightmate
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 30, 2019 5:10 am

How dare they!!!!

December 29, 2019 12:59 am

So the BBC could not arrange an on-line interview for a RADIO programme in this high tech century?

Petit_Barde
December 29, 2019 1:22 am

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.

tty
December 29, 2019 1:42 am

“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.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  tty
December 29, 2019 6:28 am

If that is the way of the future then the BBC should embrace it now.

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 29, 2019 1:55 am

What was wrong with Skype?

son of mulder
December 29, 2019 2:14 am

I have a simple calculation based on Global GDP, BBC Annual Budget and Global annual CO2 emissions that the BBC is responsible for about 2.5M Tonnes of CO2 emissions each year and that’s before all the CO2 emitted to watch and listen to their programmes is accounted for.

There are many of us in the UK who believe that the BBC can and should simply reduce their emissions to zero. It’s easy. Then their carbon footprint and gross political bias would be eliminated in one fell swoop.

mikewaite
Reply to  son of mulder
December 29, 2019 4:14 am

It is strange that they continue to make Top Gear (and profit enormously from global sales), which has always promoted hugely emitting , expensive supercars whilst urging the rest of us (who pay for the progamme and the presenter’s salaries) to buy bottom of the market cars, or bikes, or, ideally, walk.
They also stage cooking competitions with delicious meat courses whilst lecturing us with the need to cut out meat and survive on cabbage soup.
I would also like to know how much they are paying HRH Greta to be a day’s editor- according to “saveenergy” on Paul Homewood’s site yesterday she has amassed $49 million in less than 2 years.
How is that possible?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/12/28/charles-moore-accuses-bbc-of-climate-bias/#comments

Patrick MJD
Reply to  mikewaite
December 29, 2019 4:52 am

The BBC is hoping Top Gear will continue to be popular as it was when hosted by Clarkson, May and Hammond. Not a chance BBC. They made Top Gear what it was, not the BBC and certainly not any of the new presenters, with possible exception to Matt LeBlanc.

StephenP
Reply to  mikewaite
December 29, 2019 5:16 am

IIRC tax rates are pretty high in SW, so maybe she won’t see the total amount unless there has been some financial adjustments.

Michael
Reply to  son of mulder
December 29, 2019 5:02 am

Please include the US NPR ie National Public Radio in that swoop.

December 29, 2019 2:27 am

Search ‘thunberg guest editor radio 4’ – on the BBC Monday 30th December.

December 29, 2019 2:37 am

Well, never mind the Grumpy Greta, the little gremlin causing malfunction of inferior human brains software. Just few days ago there was big brouhaha over the two SC25 sunspots, however they lasted only 2.5 days and we are back into ‘good’ or bad (whichever you prefer) familiar daily zero number, so the December count looks like to be SSN=1, on the classic Woolf numbers.

Chris Wright
December 29, 2019 2:52 am

I believe the number of attendees at the recent climate circus in Spain numbered around 28000. Don’t quote me, but I’m pretty sure they all flew there and back, spewing out tons of that evil CO2. The hypocrisy is breath-taking. Have they not heard of video-conferencing?
Chris

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Chris Wright
December 29, 2019 6:48 am

That’s about right, and not only did most arrived in Spain by aircraft, by far the most arrived at the conference centre by car and bus.

Bulldust
December 29, 2019 3:14 am

I am sure the BBC has plenty of taxpayer funds to pay the appropriate Gaia indulgences for their sins against the environment.

c777
December 29, 2019 3:43 am

Once Boris and Dominic cut the licence fee, they can be as hypocritical and partisan towards “Left wing issues” as they like for all I care, but with their “own” money not ours.

Sara
December 29, 2019 3:53 am

You’d think the BBC crew would have enough sense to not let everyone know just how stupid they are, wouldn’t you? Other means of transportation went unheeded, other means of doing this so-called interview were not even brought up. No, they just had to let us ALL know what a pack of attention whackers they are by failing to take advantage of modern communications and transportation other than planes.

IDIOTS.

Embarrassment? They can wallow in it.

Alasdair Fairbairn
December 29, 2019 4:01 am

And if you dare to question BBC bias on climate matters, you will be earmarked for eventual attendance at a re-educational establishment. Fortunately burning at the stake is now no longer acceptable.
Big brother algorithms have got you covered these days.

Hivemind
December 29, 2019 4:11 am

I’m a bit upset about you calling Saint Greta a “brat”, which says so little about a very complex and troubled (troublesome?) individual. You should, at least call her the more accurate term “shrill”, or perhaps “scold”.

ozspeaksup
December 29, 2019 4:28 am

hope she met them with a nice, friendly, How Dare You!!
doncha love the” her high standards” bit?

David
December 29, 2019 5:03 am

I wasn’t aware that the prerequisite for interviewing someone was to embrace their beliefs.

HotScot
December 29, 2019 5:14 am

Is no one at the BBC capable of conducting a Skype/Facetime interview?

Maybe they don’t know about Skype/Facetime yet.

This is the level of intellectual analysis Licence fee payers are expected to swallow, and be ‘grateful’ for!

Yooper
December 29, 2019 5:45 am
Yooper
December 29, 2019 5:47 am
PaulH
December 29, 2019 5:52 am

Well, the BBC functionary did admit that she ‘felt awkward’ so that should be good enough for the Green Blob. 😉

Lee L
Reply to  PaulH
December 29, 2019 7:14 am

‘felt awkward’ … thereby signalling virtue?

Coeur de Lion
December 29, 2019 6:18 am

I am complaining to the BBC about child abuse, pointing out that they will have dropped her into obscurity by this time next year – with damage to her psyche, poor little brat,

LdB
December 29, 2019 6:44 am

Did you hear Leonardo DiCaprio and Greta are going to star in Titanic 3, but it is only going to be a love story because there will be no icebergs left.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  LdB
December 29, 2019 7:27 am

It will be a wind powered too, not a lump of coal in sight! There are many people who didn’t believe the first movie was based on an actual disaster where a ship actually called Titanic actually did sink after striking an iceberg.

Scissor
Reply to  LdB
December 29, 2019 2:40 pm

Isn’t Greta a little old for Leo? She’s turning 17 in a few days.

John Endicott
Reply to  LdB
December 30, 2019 6:48 am

Nah, LdB, Titanic 3 while be where Winslet’s character tells her #metoo story about Leo’s character.

Insufficiently Sensitive
December 29, 2019 7:40 am

“We did discuss that among ourselves. It felt awkward but we did not have the time for trains or boats.”

These dummies think that the new game of ‘holier than thou’ should trump all normal business, despite that Ms. Thunberg’s presumed holiness must be balanced by the vast expenditures of her never-reported support organization. It buys the plane tickets for yacht captains to make round trips across the Atlantic, it burns up the phone lines and airwaves organizing secret promotional schemes, it buys all her train tickets and hotel rooms and logistical conveniences for her oh-so-spontaneous ‘appearances’, and those of her promotional flacks and logistical flunkies. In balance, her economic activities playing lead in ‘holier than thou’ role-playing contribute more to global warming than any ‘savings’ gained by freeze-dried vittles and elegant racing yachts.

Consumers of ‘news’ staged by the guiltier-than-thou BBC crews have no reason to shed tears for the theatrical sins of the BBC – its minions willll be schlepping all around the world 24/7 doing their ‘normal’ gathering of propaganda for bulldozing public opinions, regardless of the Thunberg soap opera.

Right-Handed Shark
December 29, 2019 9:36 am

A day or so early, but it’s kinda on topic, so..

HOW DARE YOU have a happy, successful and prosperous new year, WUWTers..
How dare you all. 🙂

Garland Lowe
December 29, 2019 9:39 am

BBC elitist don’t have time to save the world, because they are too busy saving the world.

Fanakapan
December 29, 2019 9:56 am

To all in the UK, simply stop paying the licence fee, and use your TV for a computer monitor if it has enough resolution. There is more than enough material on the Internet now for several lifetimes of entertainment or improvement, thus rendering broadcast TV redundant.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Fanakapan
December 29, 2019 7:18 pm

If it is live streamed BBC content from the interweb, you need a license for all devices. But I agree, don’t pay it. I ever only paid it twice IIRC (80’s). I paid a similar tax in New Zealand once (90’s) and have never paid a TV tax since.

Also, it is up to the “license inspectors” to prove you are using your TV to receive live broadcasts but they don’t have any right by law to “catch” you, they also have no right of entry to your home, even though they wave “court orders” in their hands at you.

Cam_S
December 29, 2019 9:58 am

BBC’s Today guest editor accuses it of ‘biased preaching’: Author Charles Moore blasts Corporation over Brexit, climate change and ‘diversity doctrine’

Charles Moore, who edited Saturday’s edition of the show, made accusations
He faced ‘obstacles’ to getting science writer Lord Matthew Ridley onto the show
Moore said BBC had become a ‘secular church’ which had ‘nationalised culture’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7833693/BBCs-Today-guest-editor-accuses-biased-preaching.html

Mark Luhman
December 29, 2019 10:07 am

This embarrassment about using air transport is a fool not knowing what they are talking about, the alternative they listed takes more energy to transport you there. Years ago during the energy crisis in the seventies it was pointed out the to most efferent ways to travel energy wise was to use a bike of fly a jumble jet, the energy unit per mile is lowest with those two. Presently the modern jet liner is more efficient that the jumble jet of the seventies so only an idiot would apologize for using air travel. The only way to save energy on an interview where you need to travel is to use teleconferencing. God we live in a world of idiots.

MarkMcD
December 29, 2019 4:30 pm

Didn’t have time?

OK, that works for getting him there, but then they flew him HOME as well?

The bullshit is strong in this one!

David Cage
Reply to  MarkMcD
December 29, 2019 10:27 pm

Does the fact they have used the full fuel weight as the CO2 produced make the bull shit bigger or less?

DonM
Reply to  MarkMcD
December 30, 2019 9:25 am

no bullshit, they had a pressing agenda back at home as well … didn’t have time to wait.

Their time is valuable (more so than yours); what they do is important (more so than you); they have weigh the trade-offs and draw the line somewhere (and it is almost always just behind them, and always in front of you).

David Cage
December 29, 2019 10:21 pm

The bigger hypocrisy is the BBC have told computer modelling engineers who want to put the case again that as they are not climate scientists they have no right to be heard. They then give air time to a semi educated not very bright mentally disturbed teenage brat.

So much for a charter calling for unbiased broadcasting. Time to end their licence rights and at least decriminalise it so we can go to court to refuse payment until they honour their charter properly instead of going to prison and still get no voice.

The Reverend Badger
December 30, 2019 4:17 pm

Ooooh !
The times they are a changing.
Twas only a few months ago I tell you of my anagram GREEN THUG BRAT and the analysis I made of Greta’s behaviours which suggests she is either mentally disturbed or a deliberate liar.
And several of you on here criticised me.
Now the hordes weigh in with calling her a brat, etc. No crticism too.
How very gratifying that so many of you are finally opening your eyes.

Can I call her the spawn of the devil and wish her to burn in hell for all eternity now or do I have to wait until April ?

Please send me the schedule on where WUWT Overton window is heading as it’s difficult to predict now.

December 31, 2019 2:50 am

Its just a back-handed way of drawing attention to the belief some have that carbon dioxide is bad and we humans shouldn’t be putting any into the air and if we have to we should feel guilty. They saying they’re feeling guilty to reinforce the message.
It’s actually good propaganda.

Johann Wundersamer
January 10, 2020 2:16 am

To paraphrase Bruno Kreisky,

I also believe that it’s time to begin the transcript of the History of the once Great Congregation of the Church of “Green Believers”.

Johann Wundersamer
January 10, 2020 2:23 am

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Johann Wundersamer
January 10, 2020 3:04 am

Regarding

https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/russland-wetterschaukel-bestimmt-waldbrand-risiko-in.676.de.html?dram:article_id=467493

I’d say:

Vorhersagen der Waldbrandgefahr werden möglich

Der deutsche Forscher hat schon vor fünfzehn Jahren vermutet, dass die arktische Wetterschaukel das Waldbrandrisiko in Sibirien beeinflusst. Nur war die Datenlage seinerzeit sehr dürftig:

„Es galt damals teilweise ein bisschen als esoterische Idee.“

Heute fühlt sich Balzter bestätigt. Genauso wie Jin-Soo Kim kann er den neuen Studienergebnissen auch etwas Gutes abgewinnen. Ab sofort könne man die Arktische Oszillation heranziehen, „um zu sehen, in welchen Jahren man besonders auf der Hut sein muss und vielleicht auch die Feuerbekämpfung und Feuerkontrolle intensivieren muss.“

Die ist sehr real und ergibt sich aus

2 x 11,3 [ Jahre ] Sonnenflecken-Periozidität / ( 6 + 1 ) [ Jahre ] El Niño, La Niña Abfolgen ~ 2+ [ Jahre ] quasi biennial oscillation.

________________________________________________

Forest fire risk predictions are possible

The German researcher assumed fifteen years ago that the Arctic weather swing affects the risk of forest fires in Siberia. Only the data situation was very poor at the time:

“Back then it was sometimes considered a bit of an esoteric idea.”

Today Balzter feels confirmed. Just like Jin-Soo Kim, he can also benefit from the new study results. From now on you can use the Arctic Oscillation “to see in which years you have to be particularly careful and maybe also to intensify fire fighting and fire control.”

It is very real and results from

2 x 11,3 [ years ] Sunspots-Periodicity / ( 6 + 1 ) [ years ] El Niño, La Niña Successions ~ 2+ [ years ] quasi biennial oscillation.

Johann Wundersamer
January 10, 2020 3:25 am

Research currently 09.01.2020
Russia

Weather Swing Determines Forest Fire Risk in Siberia
By Volker Mrasek

A helicopter fights the forest fire on Lake Baikal (picture alliance / dpa / Russian Emergency Ministry Press)

A helicopter fights the forest fire on Lake Baikal (picture alliance / dpa / Russian Emergency Ministry Press)

Southeastern Siberia is one of the regions in the world where forests are regularly on fire. Scottish researchers have now been able to show which climate phenomenon favors the emergence of fires. This makes it possible to predict the years in which the risk of forest fires will increase particularly sharply.

In the west there is Lake Baikal with the city of Irkutsk, in the east the island of Sakhalin off the Russian Pacific coast – and in between around 3,000 kilometers of predominantly mountainous landscape. This is how Southeast Siberia can be staked out. Taiga predominates in the region, i.e. boreal coniferous forest. Large parts of it go up in flames every year. South Korean atmospheric researcher Jin-Soo Kim:

“There are two major hot spots for fire activity in higher latitudes in the northern hemisphere. One is in Central Asia, where it is mostly arable land that catch fire. And the second hot spot is Southeast Siberia with its very dense taiga forest. ”

The forest fire season begins in spring
When the bush fires in Australia are finally over, it will be the southeast Siberian taiga that will catch fire next. Because there is not a fire in summer, as one might assume, but already in spring – hardly that the winter snow cover has disappeared:

“The region is under the influence of the East Asian monsoon. There is a lot of rain in summer and there are no strong fires. In spring, on the other hand, it is very dry, and as soon as the snow melts away, leaf litter appears that burns well. That’s why the risk of fire in spring is highest. ”

Kim does research at Edinburgh University in Scotland. Together with some of his colleagues, he is now presenting a new study on Southeast Siberia based on 20 years of satellite observations. There are always particularly fire-filled years when there is a certain weather pattern in the atmosphere – and not only in April or May, when it is burning, but a month or two earlier, at the end of winter.

Climatic chain reaction

If there is a stable high in the Arctic and a low in medium latitudes, warm air flows from the south to Siberia, says Kim. As a result, the snow melts in the area early on. What follows is a kind of chain reaction:

“The sooner the snow melts, the sooner it will reveal dark ground that is warmed by the sun. As a result, the snow melts even faster and has already disappeared in spring. ”

So the fire season in southeast Siberia starts earlier, and forest fires have enough time to spread dramatically before the monsoon rain extinguishes them in summer.

Weather swing between high and low
The high and low pressure areas in the far north are directed by the Arctic Oscillation. This natural weather swing fluctuates between a positive and a negative phase. The positive one with the high above South Siberia is the critical one for the taiga forests. It tends to occur more often, says Heiko Balzter, director of the Center for Landscape and Climate Research at the University of Leicester in England. Data from the past 60 years showed that:

“What you actually know by now is that the increasing extreme droughts and drought that we are seeing now can also lead to more forest fires and catastrophic forest fires. And that it is not said that the forests in Siberia will help us to stabilize the climate in the long term, but that climate change may cause the forests there to lose their climate protection function. ”

Forest fire risk predictions are possible
The German researcher assumed fifteen years ago that the Arctic weather swing affects the risk of forest fires in Siberia. Only the data situation was very poor at the time:

“Back then it was sometimes considered a bit of an esoteric idea.”

Today Balzter feels confirmed. Just like Jin-Soo Kim, he can also benefit from the new study results. From now on you can use the Arctic Oscillation “to see in which years you have to be particularly careful and maybe also to intensify fire fighting and fire control.”

Deutschlandradio © 2014-2020
________________________________________________

Regarding

https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/russland-wetterschaukel-bestimmt-waldbrand-risiko-in.676.de.html?dram:article_id=467493

I’d say:

Vorhersagen der Waldbrandgefahr werden möglich

Der deutsche Forscher hat schon vor fünfzehn Jahren vermutet, dass die arktische Wetterschaukel das Waldbrandrisiko in Sibirien beeinflusst. Nur war die Datenlage seinerzeit sehr dürftig:

„Es galt damals teilweise ein bisschen als esoterische Idee.“

Heute fühlt sich Balzter bestätigt. Genauso wie Jin-Soo Kim kann er den neuen Studienergebnissen auch etwas Gutes abgewinnen. Ab sofort könne man die Arktische Oszillation heranziehen, „um zu sehen, in welchen Jahren man besonders auf der Hut sein muss und vielleicht auch die Feuerbekämpfung und Feuerkontrolle intensivieren muss.“

Die ist sehr real und ergibt sich aus

2 x 11,3 [ Jahre ] Sonnenflecken-Periozidität / ( 6 + 1 ) [ Jahre ] El Niño, La Niña Abfolgen ~ 2+ [ Jahre ] quasi biennial oscillation.

________________________________________________

Forest fire risk predictions are possible

The German researcher assumed fifteen years ago that the Arctic weather swing affects the risk of forest fires in Siberia. Only the data situation was very poor at the time:

“Back then it was sometimes considered a bit of an esoteric idea.”

Today Balzter feels confirmed. Just like Jin-Soo Kim, he can also benefit from the new study results. From now on you can use the Arctic Oscillation “to see in which years you have to be particularly careful and maybe also to intensify fire fighting and fire control.”

It is very real and results from

2 x 11,3 [ years ] Sunspots-Periodicity / ( 6 + 1 ) [ years ] El Niño, La Niña Successions ~ 2+ [ years ] quasi biennial oscillation.

%d bloggers like this: