Article: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Richer, stouter, and no happier

Now I like to think I'm an intellectual who's tolerant of opposing views, and calm in the vanguard of a school of thought I disagree with. Then I read this utter rubbish [stronger words were not used only for family-viewing reasons, and not due to any misplaced scruples on my part]. I despair. If someone agrees with any of the 95% of it that is total nonsense and wants to take it up with me, I'm happy to do that. Otherwise I'm just wasting the time I could be using to consume. I mean, I have high time pressures, and my quality of life will be reduced if I spend any more time writing about it. So I won't. Actually, there is one more thing to say: what the hell is going on with the BBC?! I thought yesterday's poorly-headtitled "teenage views on higher fees" article [and no, that wasn't the headline! Clever monkey] was a major disappointment, but it's high-class journalism compared to this tosh. Of course, this so-called Worldwatch Institute is entitled to its views, and is further entitled to disseminate them; the question is whether the BBC was right to present them the way they did, or even at all. There was absolutely no come-back from someone clever that much of it is possibly just wrong, or at least highly contentious, as they should do with all publications (the supposed BBC ideal of neutrality should have made this obvious, I would've thought). But further, why publish the work of a clearly biased institute, and present it as some highly academic study with its findings absolute truths? Even an academic paper wouldn't get that privilege. Next they'll publish a report by the IHR showing the Holocaust didn't happen, and asking why the Jews are complaining so much. Of course, the headline would be "Jews mislead world over Holocaust incident: Alan Yentob suspended during investigation into Jewish background". I'm actually worried this isn't as unlikely as it seems at first. ARGH! Get rid of the licence fee already! Crying out loud.