Wonder what you make of the suggestion carried by the BBC this morning that “One in six homes in England is at risk of flooding, says the Environment Agency, and climate change will raise that number without better protection”
The agency calculates that funding for projects that protect communities from flooding from rivers and the sea needs to double to £1bn annually by 2035. Without that, it says, economic damage worth £4bn per year could be the norm. The agency’s report uses data from the government’s projections of UK climate impacts, published on Thursday.”
The BBC just loves this sort of climate alarmism and never provides a voice to those who challenge the wild claims emanating from The Met Office and the other organs of eco-wackery. In this way bias is consistent and never challenged. What worries me is that the power and presence the BBC has in so many homes throughout this land gives this insidious propaganda a real menacing aspect- brain-washing so many into accepting the radical environ-mentalist agenda.
The BBC can produce as much CO2 as it choses to because, like most thinking prople they know that the rubbish they push on "Global Warming" is just pure propaganda.
I challenge the BBC lover ScottM to refute all the points in the following video.
Pete: Ah yes, you've spotted the hypocrisy of the liberal elite. They want 'cut backs' in CO2. What they really mean is they want the unwashed scum (truck drivers, cab drivers, factory workers etc) to cut back whilst THEY carry on with thier very exclusive lifestyles.
My first piece of evidence is the stupid slag Emma Thompson. She is the silly bitch that campaigned against the expansion of Heathrow airport whilst flying out of it on a regular basis to see her luvvie mates in Hollywood.
Wankers like Bozo and Madonna who spout on about climate change whilst owning several large homes (presumably heated by fossil fuels) and flying around in private jets.
I could go on but this is about liberal wankers who really need a good punch in the face and told to piss off.
d. Ah yes. immigration. You have to remember that immigrants are often young and badly educated and far more likely to vote liberal. This very same theory is why in the USA the liberals there want uncontrolled immigration from Mexico and other third world Countries. Thick people vote liberal. Have you ever met anyone who reads the Guardian who has an IQ over 10?
The beeb is busted once again for blatant bias:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/iranprop.php?q=WRHARTICLES/iranprop.phpare
Is it any wonder the Iranians hate the BBC, here's the beebs apology:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/06/what_really_happened.html
Newsshite is such bollux.
what was she wearing tonight. plus she is talentless
Don't know how true this is, but interesting all the same The BBC caught lying again?
Adam,
She even managed to misread/mispronounce 'Khamenei', calling him 'Khomenei'.
BBC Liars? said…
Don't know how true this is, but interesting all the same The BBC caught lying again?
3:48 AM, June 20, 2009
—————————————-
"Jew controlled"? Whoops, a big alarm bell goes off there…
This issue was one of the reasons I started to believe that the BBC is Biased. The BBC is so partisan it's unbelievable.
BBC Liars 3:48
The funny thing is that the link refers to the BBC being "Jew-controlled", whilst anyone reading this website on a regular basis knows that the BBC is intitutionally anti-semitic !
It's relenteless. I was enjoying an episode of "Coast" the other day – until the inevitable Global Warnming doomsters came on, pushing their agenda at every opportunity. This is unrelenting propaganda that brooks no alternative view. Unfortunately, we should not expect any incoming Tory administration under Dave to redress this situation by forcing the BBC into adopting a more balanced view.
institutionnaly !
"Have you ever met anyone who reads the Guardian who has an IQ over 10?"
Steady on, Martin. I like to think I have an IQ in double figures, but I read the Guardian – well, online only and then just the football pages!
i think this moonbattery was spin by the government, cos while the eco moonbats were ranting and raging on Al Beeb about dangerous human induced, blah blah climate change, the dodgy expenses released by Parliament and black marker, were not being discussed
BBC Liars, Sutech
I saw the same story on a more sensible site – 2 BBC photos, one of a rally with DinnerJacket speaking, the other of an ant–Dinnerjacket rally but focussing on the crowd, no speaker in the foreground. It was analysed to show that both photos were exactly the same crowd.
So yes – it looks like the BBC was committing picture fraud. Again.
Yes, I've seen the Photoshopped crowd pics on another site, though I don't know if they were sourced from the Beeb or not.
…and stil it continues. Drip, drip drip drip:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8110551.stm
What a shock. The BBC playing down the Labour sleaze over expenses. Instead the BBC are running the Lib Dem sleaze and McTwat's interview.
Does anyone out there think that if it were Tory MPs being investigated by the plods the BBC wouldn't be going mental over this? We'd have SIR Michael Shite and fatty Toynbee, Steve Richards etc spouting on and on and on.
But as it's Labour the BBC say almost nothing.
Scott said…
"The problem I have with these kinds of reports is that they are not backed up with any kind of sensible evidence."
Actually, they are. Unlike David Vance's assertions to the contrary, certainly. But then when has Vance let the facts get in the way of proclaiming that he's right?
Pray tell Scott, what evidence has been used to formulate this computer based projection? Will we be told the baseline information, or the alogrithms used?
The BBC doesn't just rely on computer models.
It fills its video content with bleak global warming features. See the following:
'Global warming changes border'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8110551.stm
'Bleak warning from Antartica'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7911317.stm
Only at the end does the reporter mention that the study is not predicting dramatic change.
The BBC had refused to allow representatives of the BNP appear on the panels of Question Time (BBC1) and Any Questions (Radio 4) on the ground that the BNP did not have any reprsentation in any of the main political institutions including the European Parliament. Now that the BNP does meet this criterion, there has still been nobody from the BNP on either of these panels. Goalposts have been shifted and, having read this item, I think I know why. Nick Griffin was interviewed post EU-elections on Radio 5 and during the usual race/immigration chat, NG said that he would like to talk about something else, and then said words to the effect that "man-made global warming is a hoax intended to allow governments to impose more taxes and greater control on their populations". There it is: the reason why the BNP doesn't get onto QT or AQ. The dam would burst.
The BBC is a joke. On News 24 some ugly female beeboid was interviewing another ugly female about the fat one eyed Scottish twat. So the BBC gave less that 1 minute to the LABOUR SLEAZE STORY but 10 minutes to the interview that the one eyed jock tosser gave to a failing left wing rag.
And we're told the BBC isn't biased?
Martin,
Yes, they were cooing over Brown like expectant mothers over a baby.
And why did neither of them realise that McMucus’s claim that he’s no good at "manoeuvring" – and him saying that he wants to be a teacher when he leaves parliament (a “sweet” idea, according to the gullible Guardianette) – is just yet another shameless bit of manoeuvring on Brown's part, obviously aimed at winning brownie points with teachers & the public in general? I don’t believe it for a second & I bet Balls told him to say it.
As others have commented, the police's investigation into the activities of several Labour politicians has been completely excised from the BBC's coverage.
It's impossible to believe the same would have been true, had the accused been Tories. Remember the Hamilton affair?
No updates on the BBC's climate blog from Richard Cable since 9 June. Has he been sent for re-education? In the meantime his co-blogger – ultra-greenie Shanta Barley – has been hammering home the approved message. In her latest post she points out that an environmental studies professor is unhappy that his work is being misused by global warming alarmists (ironic coming from a BBC green) but she is also keen to point out that the professor does believe in MMGW and that his views aren't "the foam-flecked ravings of a fringe skeptic". I think that phrase tells us all we need to know about what the BBC thinks of those who don't accept the new religion. And it's spelt "sceptic" – it is the British Broadcasting Corporation, after all.
Is not pointing out that the British Broadcasting Corporation had made a spelling mistake (sceptic) because it is British an anti-British remark, rather than anti BBC?
Sutekh @ 10:27 AM, June 20, 2009,
RE: Italian glacier melting.
Yes, this is good news. Archaeologists specializing in the Neolithic Age appreciate this kind of climate change, even if Climate Truthers don't get it.
Craig: The only place that one eyed arsehole should be going is to prison along with the other war criminal Blair.
Talking of Blair, the Beeb is being ultra-coy about his expenses.
Fancy not telling us about the £260 shredder he claimed for – and doubtless put to use to shred all those incriminating receipts.
In purely journalistic terms alone, this is a great story – though obviously not great enough for the biased BBC.
It's conveniently assumed that all increased risk of flooding is due to an absolute rise in sea level. However, SE England is sinking by a process known as isostatic adjustment. This is a readjustment of the height of the land mass following the retreat of the ice sheets and has been known for some time.
global warming models predict ice in antarctica would increase not melt away.
melting antarctica is a sign global warming models are inaccurate.
the bbc dont care
I know little about climate– pretty much what everyone else generally knows– but I am an expert on computers. I've been involved with them since "telecommunications" meant handing a computer tape to a courier to drive over to the satellite uplink… circa 1969.
When I first heard about the IPCC, and that their opinion was based upon computer models, my hair stood on end. The little "bullshit" alarm at the back of my mind went off, and hasn't stopped since.
Why? Because it is virtually impossible for a computer climate model to be correct.
If we knew EVERYTHING there is to know about climate and were capable of pulling it together into a system, it would STILL be questionable because weather– and "climate" is long-term weather– is a chaotic system.
Computers don't DO chaotic systems very well.
For all the fantastically complex tasks computers can perform today, they can still do only TWO things… add ones and zeros and store data. Period.
Until weather systems can be quantified into EXACT mathematical terms, climate models are going to do absolutely nothing except report back what the programmers told it to report.
That is ALL they can do without the exacting math.
You just have to ask who in 1944 in the closing year of WWII was going around measuring the worlds surface temperatures? Or in 1917?Where do all the data points in the imfamous hockey stick graph running from 1860 come from? They are all outputs from assumptions. I also know sod-all about "Climate Science" but I used to build complex computer models and they only output their assumptions, which in this case are designed to deliver the answer that is wanted ie more economic activity = more carbon emissions = increase in temperature. Plus a bit of "noise" to make it more credible.
Solution = stop all human progress, or your children will fry. Its all lies. The Green Trojan Horse is full of reds, levellers, anti-capitalists, science-jobsworths and class warriors.
I am waiting soon for someone to set up a government hot-line so children can denounce their parents for being environmental criminals. "It's your future your selfish parents are destroying. Ring now. We just need their names"