One of the areas I have reported on recently is the extent to which established concerns (blue chip corporations, professional bodies and so on) are tied up in the climate change scam. Their senior executives are engaged in multi-dimensional strategies to work out how to the scare the public and the government into coughing up ever-greater amounts in subsidies and into developing crackpot schemes to deal with “climate change impacts” that the climate models ludicrously predict will happen. Thus big industry funds the alarmist Science Media Centre; there are consultancy companies who specialise in forcing the government’s hand; senior personnel of blue chip companies meet on a regular basis to work out how to scam yet more money; and, of course, senior former BBC executives have become “advisors” in the whole rotten, stinking enterprise.
I have said before that when I trained as a journalist, both at the BBC and on the now defunct excellent regional newspaper scheme, it was drummed into us relentlessly to be sceptical and cynical; and especially, where money was involved, to find out who benefitted and why before rushing into print. In those days, that led, for example, to the unearthing of the massive Poulson local authority corruption, and the demise, eventually, of ex-Tory Chancellor Reggie Maudling for his part in the fetid mess. I had a modest part in this.
Spool forward to today. All this seems to be forgotten. Richard Black instead acts as an unquestioning mouthpiece for a bunch of engineers who ought to be ashamed of themselves . Their logic beggars belief; first they accept unquestioningly Met Office model forecasts that temperatures are definitely going to rise by several degrees (disregarding evidence like this), then they say, that as that happens, new investors are going to be more likely to stump up cash in countries where there is a “secure infrastructure”. This is la-la land, the logic of the madhouse, though of course, it is a framework for getting out their begging bowls in the queue for subsidies to slay these imaginary dragons. Not so for Richard Black. As usual – while his colleague Roger Harrabin is with other eco-nutters in Oslo – he accepts the whole fantasy as gospel truth – and goes to town in his toadying scaremongering. It’s a travesty of journalism and the tragedy is that quite patently, he is not remotely aware of it.
It can’t be that he’s not remotely aware of it. He’s been told often enough. He evidently just doesn’t care.
Humphereys, Today programme at 8.41 am taklking about Ronald Reagan:
“Is that because he [Reagan] wasn’t very bright”?
Pure bias from the BBC
I heard that one too!
The left spread its poisonous smears about Reagan for years and chief among the smear merchants were groups like CND in the pay of the USSR and eagerly amplified by the BBC, that ghastly scumbag Ashton could tell some tales(if she was tortured for long enough 😀 ,who said waterboarding isnt fun?).
That would be the same highly intelligent John Humphrys who on yesterday’s show asked if the astronauts taking part in a 520-day simulation of a flight to Mars in a warehouse in Moscow were “weightless all that time”? Astronomer David Whitehouse had to stifle a laugh before he replied.
DB,
Ignorance of science is a prerequisite for being a Beeboid. In fact it is typical of most luvvies. They are even proud of their stupidity.
I remember clearly being told by the BBC how clever Gordon Brown was. Such a very clever Chancellor of the Exchequer. It used to drive me up the wall.
>>It’s a travesty of journalism and the tragedy is that quite patently, he is not remotely aware of it.<<
How is it patent that he is not aware of it?
Like so many of his colleagues at the BBC he is a shameless propagandist abusing his position.
To see the extent of establishment support, one need only look here:
http://www.climateweek.com/supporters/
A slick, but lifeless website. A collection of usual suspects and their jolly-looking apprentices organising it all: http://www.climateweek.com/about-us/the-team/
I suspect that ‘right-minded’ councils here and there will pass resolutions in support, that schools and universities already on the gravytrain will do something, and that Tesco employees may well do so too, if they know what’s good for them. But otherwise, I see a rather expensive damp squib under construction.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/02/07/paul-krugman-blames-egypt-crisis-global-warming
Told you, told you, told you….
Ooh, sorry, got a bit carried away there..
If Mr. Reagan wasn’t very bright, what does that make Brown and Cameron, Huhne and Clegg? I only ask!
Back to our muttons though, what in hell’s name are these “engineers” on about, coping with the coming “climate change disaster”. It is time they set their own house in order before worrying about a myth.
It is not a question of IQ. By definition right-wingers are stupid and Lefties are clever.
You missed out evil. Right-wingers are stupid and evil.
Reagan had a BA in Economics and Sociology. So can we presume that Harrabin is not very bright? who also has a BA
What about Humphreys?
“He was an average pupil and left school at the age of 15 years to become a teenage reporter on the Penarth Times”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Humphrys
It may be true that qualifications may not be a sign of being “bright”, but what criteria is Humphreys using to judge?
Well I am a member of the high IQ society Mensa with an IQ of 164. It is well known within the society that due to almost a 100 years of meritocracy in Britain, that started with the Grammar Schools, people on the left who vote Labour now live in areas with very poor academic ability and people on the right who vote Tory now live in areas with a very high academic ability. Middle class people with low intelligence tend to go for the dumbed down degrees such as Art, Sociology, Media studies and the Humanities as a way of clinging on to the middle classes in defiance of a true meritocracy which would put them in the position of doing the menial jobs that immigrants do. Which is why if Britain was still an all white society based on merit, they would regard that as a nightmare, instead they obtain jobs advertised in the Guardian which fit there qualifications, such as those in the Public sector which includes the BBC.
I believe it is deliberate socialist policy to dumb down education because less educated people are more likely to vote Labour.
It is commonly conceded that in terms of IQ the most intelligent president of modern times was Jimmy Carter. It is also commonly conceded that he was the worst president of modern times.
Efforts to prove GW Bush was the least intelligent president in the last 50 years proved to be a hoax.
Steven Sailor wrote in an article describing how G.W. Bush was apparently slightly smarter than John Kerry but both were of higher than national average:Liberals tend to believe two things about IQ:
First, that IQ is a meaningless, utterly discredited concept.Second, that liberals are better than conservatives because they have much higher IQs.
Oh I think Black is well aware of the yawning gaps in the “science” of climate change. However, I suspect that he severely limits his “journalistic” research to the output of those journals and academic outfits already seriously compromised by the corruption of “peer review” or worse. I wouldn’t be surprised, either, that he avoids visiting any websites (eg WUWT or Climate Audit) which might challenge his restricted world-view.
Moreover, he is also intelligent enough to know that, were he to start being a journalist rather than a mouthpiece, his career at the BBC (as well as his parallel careers of chairing warmist conferences and addressing warmist cheer-fests) would probably screech to an abrupt halt. As well as losing opportunities of extensive travel and extra moolah from outside activities, he might even be transported to the Siberia of the BBC: Salford. After all Sissons kept quiet until he was safely retired and Jeff Randle only blurted out the truth after his move from the BBC.
‘As usual – while his colleague Roger Harrabin is with other eco-nutters in Oslo ‘
What’s the oversight on all this?
When I was an ad man, there were a bazillion jollies, and the board was very aware that I would turn up at any piss up anywhere if it got me somewhere nice, first class, in a 5* hotel. So I needed to justify the benefits before it got signed up.
We recently were treated to clear evidence and examples of media numpities seduced to (Carbocritically) attending the opening of an envelope so long as it was stamped green, with vast amounts of £ and GHGs falling into the green maw around this ‘get-together’ addiction.
I will not deem ‘I met a source from WWF who says we’re all gonna die!!!!!’ in one tucked away online article as best use of funds or carbon offsets, really.
And i do notice that BBC Worldwide is listed as a previous funder of what seems an advocacy group with less than imaprtial agenda.
Do the words ‘conflict of interest’ not register chez Aunty… ever?
I wonder when the BBC – or Black, Harrabin or Shukman in particular – will inform the little people about the O’Donnell-Steig ruckus. Briefly, a prominent warmist has been caught bang to rights in corruption of the peer review process ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/07/rcs-duplicity-prods-jeff-id-out-of-retirement/ ). The hoo-hah is also dealt with in one of Bishop Hill’s threads here http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/8/steig-snippets.html#comments . The issue is complicated but is expalined pretty well and briefly by a commenter on the Bishop Hill thread “lapogus at Feb 8, 2011 at 9:42 AM”.
Real Climate (warmist website of choice), in its usual dedication to openness, is deleting comments right left and centre (OK – just right and centre) on the issue.
Once more the fan is peppered with shit…
You know, this site sometimes bothers me, when you sound too much like a bunch of cheerleaders for the Tory Party – whose cuts and policies, in my view, richly deserve attack. But this is perfect, splendid: back to basics in a very different way from John Major’s, and an agonizing reminder of how much we all – not just the BBC – have lost in much less than a lifetime, and how much we have all allowed ourselves to be corrupted.
All perfectly valid… views, if one has to be a wee bit bemused by the choice of thread to post ’em on (albeit OT’d briefly earlier). Also, this rather quaint ‘You know… bothers me… in my view…’ phrasing. But what most intrigues me is the use of ‘you’. Who is ‘you’ from simply one poster on a thread in amongst a bunch of other independent posters on a free, open blog? Is there a ‘unique’ status that sets folk apart that I’m not aware of?
Can’t speak for all, but for self (and a few others who may wish to hop aboard as is their wont) I concede that by being the BBC’s default, do-no-wrong political party of choice and hence undeserved beneficiaries of vast amounts of slack and positive bias, I have no great love for Labour (and a few other sacred BBC cows). And I do wonder why the Tories, by contrast, seem to be wrong, or bad, or to be criticised no matter what.
However, I pretty much view them as i do most modern political entities, and that is not in a good way. Especially when they have either no standards or too many multiples.
And, frankly, by at best only whinging on occasion or, worse, sucking up most of the time, they deserve most they get from our genetically mutated national bradcaster.
My main concern is how the latter’s agenda and competence serves the national interest, free speech and democracy. Especially when dealing with an elected government as a very unelected opposition that I for some reason am compelled to co-fund.
Not a heck of a lot, IMHO.
The trouble, Laura, is that these cuts are the only chance this country has of ever getting the economy fixed after the Blair/Brown/Balls Up. The BBC are against the cuts, although they were for them when the previous government planned very similar ones.
This is what is wrong with the BBC – they have a different reaction to the same story dependent on who is telling it. I didn’t vote Conservative and I don’t really like Cameron although he is a little better than those he followed and those who sit opposite him.
If you look at this site, you will see a lot of “pro-Conservative” items, but that’s because that is where the BBC bias is most evident, and this site is created to discuss BBC bias. So I assume that is where you get your “cheerleaders for the Tory Party” claim from – perfectly understandable to be honest.
But if you would look at those items where the BBC anti-Conservative bias is discussed, I would estimate that over 90% show incontrovertible proof of this bias. They don’t even try too hard to hide it any more.
However, there are many other other biases that they evidence on an almost daily basis – anti-Republican Party in all US matters, anti-Israel even when, as has been proved in the news recently, that Israel (for all its faults) is still the safest, most democratic country to live in in the area, and that very little of the real problems in the ME can be put down to Israel’s fault.
They also attack scientists with open minds who are actually investigating things properly, and behave in a cavalier manner with the truth. I could go on but you should have a look at the proofs on this site and it might open your mind as to how dangerous the BBC have become.
Laura,
If you read this site regularly, I don’t think you will find much support for the Conservative Party here.
Also the comment “bunch of cheerleaders” amuses me. One of the things I love about this site is the independence of mind of most of the posters here.
And who are you to say “how much we have all allowed ourselves to be corrupted” ? Speak for yourself , by all means, but you don’t speak for me.
“whose cuts and policies, in my view, richly deserve attack.”
Yes lets carry on borrowing money on the world money markets. Until the shit really hits the fan. By that time I hope I’m in Australia.
“whose cuts and policies, in my view, richly deserve attack.”
Yes lets carry on borrowing money on the world money markets. Until the shit really hits the fan. By that time I hope I’m in Australia.
I clicked on like on this because I preferred it to the first one. 😉
Demon,
John Anderson agreed with you. I preferred the first one myself !
Could be attention seeking!
It may appear that people here are a bunch but it could be misleading. People post as individuals and not all agree with everything that is posted. Most do not appear to like the Conservatives or the current PM or government. Myself, I do like Cameron more than dislike, which I think is a minority view on here. I have hopes of him and he is certainly a great improvement on what we had before. I am grateful every day that we were spared a Labour-Lib government thanks to Cameron’s quickness and sureness.
My dislike of Labour is something that has come about because of their conduct in office over 13 years. It isn’t that I was pro Tory and anti Labour to begin with. As far as the cuts are concerned, I am encouraged to see the government getting a grip on our finances. I don’t think they are Tory cuts so much as the inevitable result of Labour’s record in office. Labelling them as Tory cuts is something the Beeboid Corporation has been doing day after day with the obvious result that that is how people now think of them, regardless of the cause or the need to put our house in order.
Well, I for one, am a cheerleader for common sense, and a way forward. The Labour party have proved themselves to be incapable of either fiscal maturity. or indeed, government. They left an unholy mess for whoever followed them, to clear up. It’s unfortunate that the winners of the last general election ended up as a coalition of propably the best and worst of politics – in effect, cancelling each other out. Happily, I no longer have to live in the shithole formerly known as Great Britain (or the Former UK), so I watch, appalled, from a short distance away. It occurs to me that the present government mean well, but are hamstrung by the constituent parts of the coalition, and by Europe, who really should have no bearing on affairs of the UK.
Either way, the wrong-headed approach to the climate change non-problem will inevitably come to haunt whoever is in power, because (apart from the more level-headed UKIP), they all have their heads in the clouds or up their own backsides, and are “advised” by those to whom the best advice would be “get lost”. It’s our lives they’re playing with, in their quest to stop a constantly changing climate from changing – it’ll never happen, and we all know it, but unless someone wakes up pretty soon, it’ll be too late and we’ll ALL be sunk.
BTW Fiona Fox is being eviscerated by the commenters here http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/blog/2011/02/peter-sissons-attack-on-the-bb.shtml#dnaacs as she tries (and fails) to prove that the BBC’s reporting of climate change issues is impartial. The article is risible but the comments are lethal.
Laura — “whose cuts and policies, in my view, richly deserve attack. ”
Yes they do deserve attack – they also deserve defence.
Try looking up the word “impartial”.
John, I’m trying to work out the picture on your avatar. I thought it was Robespierre or Danton as I can’t see it too clearly. But now, from your last answer, I wonder if it’s Jefferson.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRtooke.htm
Thatwas interesting. I don’t remember hearing his (your) name before. You don’t have to answer but I suspect you are a clergyman with an interest in politics, which is clear you being on this site.
It just shows there have been people wanting to reform aspects of Parliament, for good reasons, for ever really.
Come back Laura, all is forgiven !