tomo. Seems to be a straight news story to me, with one potentially offensive (to you) sentence out of nine. Can you be sure that "experts" didn't suggest rising temperatures and deforestation MAY be responsible? If they did then the offending sentence would also be normal news reporting. It is entirely possible that, with a higher than average death toll, "experts" would have been asked for an explanation. The extremely short news item merely summarised their comments.

I sometimes feel that you, and others here, deliberately go looking for BBC bias (of which there is much) and find it, even when it may not be there.

If on the other hand you have evidence that the BBC suppressed other "expert" statements that the high death toll is just a statistical outlier, then you would have a case.

Green Sand - 'June 6th'

"While the difference of 0.1ppm may seem trivial, the expert said it marks a 'psychological tipping point' in our battle against global warming. "

How more real can you get? :)

@Michel there is a bit here on PH's
Note the comment about that as long as the interconnectors are working the UK was probably getting coalpower from Holland etc.

I suspect what is happening is that the power stations are still burning just as much coal, but they are not supplying the grid because of the requirement to give preference to wind and solar. Does anyone know if this is what is happening?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/13/uk-energy-from-coal-hits-zero-for-first-time-in-over-100-years

This is the story.

Any comments on the reports of zero coal use in electricity generation in the UK in recent days, maybe longer?