The end of the working week approaches so time for a new one of these. Got a view on the BBC you would care to share?
OPEN THREAD
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Lucy Pevensey Dec 26, 23:05
Christmas 2024
Stew, I forgot about News Sniffer. I haven’t used it in a long time. It’s a good resource. - Deborah Dec 26, 22:56
Christmas 2024
Popeye, I think the scales fell from my eyes when Tony Blair became Prime Minister. Every day the Toady programme… - StewGreen Dec 26, 22:54
Christmas 2024
Edits exposed here https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/2727625/diff/0/1 - tomo Dec 26, 22:44
Christmas 2024
Yeah, saw that the IAF missed Dr. Tedros…. an uncharacteristic slip up. - StewGreen Dec 26, 22:38
Christmas 2024
BBC caught been unwoke, quickly stealth edits its page Jill Foster @JournalistJill Dec 24 The most surprising thing about this… - Deborah Dec 26, 22:33
Christmas 2024
Cannot get a signal for GBNews. (Is that a way of controlling viewing figures? ) Switched on BBC1 news and… - StewGreen Dec 26, 22:22
Christmas 2024
images https://www.twitter.com/JonnyForeigner2/status/1872011960293945529/ - Fedup2 Dec 26, 21:50
Christmas 2024
Inevitable that the dead blue party wouldn’t recognise that it is dead . I still can’t believe anyone voted for… - StewGreen Dec 26, 21:40
Christmas 2024
@KemiBadenoch has made a super bold claim that Reform’s membership counter is FAKE BUT has showed no evidence .. Others…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
I wait with some trepidation to see how the BBC is going to cover the upcoming CoP17 (‘Conference of the Parties’, I kid you not) two-week climate jolly in Durban, SA. I know we can’t expect any fair-minded, rational, unbiased coverage, but I’m still anxious to see just how hysterically pro-AGW the ‘reporting’ is going to get. Any chance at all we might hear from a few dissenting voices? I thought not.
As delegates top up their Air Miles and charge it all to taxpayers from Australia to Belgium, as advocates from some of the world’s leading ‘green’ NGOs check into their air-conditioned hotel suites, run through their exquisite Power Point presentations one last time and prepare to excoriate us all for doubting the ‘settled science’ of AGW, it will be very interesting to see how low the BBC can possibly sink it’s much-vaunted reputation for ‘impartiality’ and ‘fair-mindedness’ this time around.
Dogstar
With the recent BBC Trust ruling against the BBC’s One Show’s biased coverage of the Dale Farm/ Basildon Council confrontation it is with a sad heart that I realise the views of all Climate realists are now below that of a lying tresspassing gipsy.
Please jazznick a lying tresspassing gipsey is still bracketed in Victim Group thus deserving favourable coverage . And Dogstar the delegates are bracketed in Beneficient to Nature and Mankind Group and thus can destroy the earth in order to save it .
When will it become a hate crime to decry the warmists?
What they haven’t been reporting http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-havent-they-been-reporting.html
RaymondSnoddy Raymond Snoddy Newswatch this week looks at potential impact of Leveson on BBC with David Jordan, Roger Graef and John Kampfner
And, all together now… ‘We think we get it about right!*’
I think the tabs are beyond the pale. But then I think the broads are too. And all the broadcasters.
Especially those who make sanctimomious claims to the contrary whilst either ignoring or suppressing clear evidence of them being up to their necks in most contra-ethical or basic integrity media behaviours.
*But those we compete with need to be crushed in ways only £4Bpa monopolies can.
I have noticed that the BBC will only report allegations of wrong doing against papers which are eurosceptic in tone. despite several confessions from former journalists that the hacking and blagging was widespread across all papers, and the review which showed the Mirror group engaged in this more than anyone else, The BBC will only attack News International, The Daily Express and the Daily Mail.
Two articles on the BBC today:
Newsflash: the BBC discovers government waste
Grant Shapps in on-air ‘meltdown’ over housing figures
Nothing new to Biased BBC readers but worth reading.
love the avatar Barry! Moh Mouse.
It was nice of the BBC to enlighten us as to why immigration has reached record levels. It’s because not enough Brits are leaving!
On the six o clock news last night, they wheeled out an English family who were going to move to NZ but decided against it. Such selfish bastards! How on earth are we going to become a nation of identity-less, coffee-coloured clones if the British scum can’t be pushed out that easily?!
Thankfully climate change policy should cull a good many of the older generation this winter but more needs to be done!
Well, I left (just in time, it seems) – I don’t suppose many can afford to now that their pensions have been screwed first by the One-eyed Mong, and then by everyone else since…
Not the BBC, but the Guardian – Leo Hickman is enlisting the help of readers to try to identify the climategate leaker:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/nov/25/clues-climate-email-hackers-message
That’s a lot of effort to go to for a ‘non-story’.
And quelle surprise – the Guardian is nuking my comments point out that:
i) it is utter hypocrisy given the paper’s ‘going large’ on wikileaks and
ii) that assuming it is a hack will lead them to entirely the wrong conclusions if in fact it was a leak.
But hey, don’t let the truth get in the way, eh Guardian?
Actually… unless they are a later on, the first page seems preety clear (suprisingly so) of CommentisFreenotlikingfreecomment nuking, unlike most BBC pages.
And at least the chap is replying.
Not sure his hole excavation stance is gaining many fans, mind, perhaps because the ground on which he is making it seems… shaky.
The Guardian has two types of comment removal:
i) the standard ‘moderated’ one where your name and time of posting still remains and with the usual Guardian boilerplate about it not satisfying their “community standards” etc
ii) the “nuke” moderation – where they remove all evidence the comment was ever there in the first place.
They’ve done the former to me for two comments and the latter for a further two comments. Its a really nasty way to censor because then no one (except you) knows that censorship has taken place.
I’m also now being “pre-moderated”
OK this is weird – no wonder you didn’t see many removals – since the comments have gone over to two pages I checked back on page 1 and suddenly all the censored comments are back!
I think they have a bug in their software…..
Oops no – only the standard “moderated” comments are back. It appears that the nuked comments are gone forever….
I think it was the BlackHarrabin team, as a double bluff…
How predictable! An interview of Cleggie by Humphrys on Today concerning the £1 billion to be tipped into the “create useless jobs” toilet of youth unemployment turns into a joint rant about evil bankers and Humphrys extolling the Labour policy of taxing bankers’ bonuses.
I also listened to the interview with a young girl from Middlesbrough whose college training in hairdressssing and childcare has not led directly to a senior job in the City. Did no-one consider that this poor girl is not just unemployed and, probably, unemployable: she and her friends are unemployable in Middlesbrough and for a good reason. Now that the public employment bonanza has been (partially) switched off, the paucity of real jobs (ie in the private sector) north of Watford caused by the previous government is becoming evident.
She wants to go back to college (to study what exactly?) but the taxpayer funding (EMA etc) is no longer available so she is dependent on job-seekers allowance. She identifies her problem as a catch 22 (no experience therefore no job therefore no experience) which, as it happens, more college non-qualifications will not break. She may be correct in identifying the proximate cause of her unemployment but the lack of real jobs is not a function of lack of government handouts, it was the funding of those handouts which created the lack of real jobs in the first place. However don’t expect any of the economic commentators employed or allowed near a microphone by the BBC will tell you this (or even consider it a subject for reasoned discussion).
No-one seems to have mentioned that abolishing automatic retirement age means that fewer jobs become available at the other end of the age spectrum.
RD
I’m not sure you’re correct there. This is the lump of labour fallacy that there is a fixed amount of work available. Keeping people in productive employment (ie not paid for by the government) increases GDP and will translate into new productive jobs. Forcing people to retire and become prematurely unproductive will not create productive jobs anywhere.
Yes, but that would take time to filter through. The abolition of retiral age is a recent thing and will already be gumming up the career progression ladder with no discernible effect as yet on GDP. You also have the problem, which will increase over time, of older employees who are really not very productive any more but who employers are too frightened to sack and replace with productive youngsters.
But my point is not whether it’s right or wrong but that it’s an issue which has been entirely ignored by the BBC as far as I’ve noticed.
” . . it’s an issue which has been entirely ignored by the BBC . . ”
Oh I agree. When was the last time we heard an intelligent discussion on the BBC between two knowledgeable – if opposed – economists? On Today what we usually get is a lefty think tank warbling some junk and Humphrys bringing on Will Hutton for a bit of “impartial” comment.
I came across an interesting tweet from columnist Toby Young this morning:
‘According to latest HMT data, spending in real terms on Health in 09/10 was £102.75b. In 14/15 it will be £102.96b’
In that case, why are spending cuts a recurrent theme in BBC hospital drama Holby City?
Might they not give the impression that real terms spending in health has dropped under the Coalition?
Jeff
Interesting post on C Home – though it doesn’t go far enough:-
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/11/from-halfon4harlowmp-the-bbc-cannot-continue-as-a-kleptocracy-we-need-to-put-licence-fee-payers-in-c.html
Having looked at the Humphrys/Shapps debacle of yesterday as well as coppers nark Leo Hickman wanting someone to grass up the e-mail leaker re global warming…you just get the whole impression that the BBC/Guardian axis wo`t be happy until Mandelson and Patten are confirmed as the liberals dream team…keep white trash out of the loop and let them run things…a Government of National Healing as it were.
When the liberal elite are THIS unsubtle, crass and stupid on a daily basis…we`ll be needing some body armour, so they don`t read the body language(their main tactic!).
Jeremy Vine is back from India Monday…climate change?…what of it?
He called Mumbai ‘the most exciting place on earth’, good luck with that one Jeremy. Personally, I hope he and his team of psychophants stay out there.
I expect its not the most exciting place for half the population that live in slums.
There seems to be a “common purpose” operating behind the scenes –
“the BBC/Guardian axis won`t be happy until Mandelson and Patten are confirmed as the liberals dream team”.
And maybe the European Commission’s dream team too.
Jamie Oliver fest: Guadian and BBC news tag team of bias and omission:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15888966
“Jamie Oliver says healthy school food standards ‘eroded'”
and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15875019
“Unhealthy food ‘returning to school’ warn caterers”
The big news? some acadamis (oh yes, hence the story) want the return of vending machines
http://owsblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/olivers-outburst.html
Hmm and I want Mr Oliver to just shut the f up and go away! just because the last bunch of intellectual pygmy’s that made up the star struck luvie fondling Labour government gave him and his sad clan of fat cooks the time of day now he think the whole bloody world want his bilge dripped in their ear ??
Couldn’t agree more – pucker, innit?
Yes, and of course on its ‘Education’ news page, BBC-NUJ leads with Jamie Oliver; the following story is nowhere to be seen:
UK: Muslim teacher gets only 10 days in prison for brutal assaults of children in Qur’an class
“If a non-Muslim teacher in a non-Muslim school committed these assaults, do you think he would have gotten only ten days? More British dhimmitude: “Muslim teacher who was secretly filmed kicking and slapping children at mosque is jailed,” by Chris Brooke for the Daily Mail “
Strange it’s “nowhere to be seen” as we covered it the day BEFORE the story you link to in the Mail. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-15857748
Oliver disgusted me for life by referring to a group of working class women as “scrubbers” for giving their children real food instead of the anorexic crap doled out to them by the school caterers. No doubt the beeb thinks working class women are scrubbers too. The white ones, that is.
Actually he disgusted me too for deriding mothers when the children were hungry and miserable because they weren’t used to the type of food he deemed suitable for them: pasta! and God knows what other unfamiliar ingredients, flavourings, sauces and concoctions. The mothers were passing food through the railings to the children in the school. No wonder. I wouldn’t have eaten pasta either when I was a child.
probably straight after friday incitement hour….i mean prayers
el bbc crows
Egypt protests: Mass Friday rally ahead of election
but before we put out the bbc bunting
a bit more rain on the parade 😀
“wonderful” arab spring update
Media watchdog:
Egypt unsafe for female reporters,” from the Associated Press
mind you if they won t follow the example of the political elites ;-D
Egypt: Female Political Candidate Says ‘Women Deficient in Intelligence’
French T.V. Journalist Assaulted by Cairo Protesters
Caroline Sinz told France 3 television, her employer, on Friday that a day earlier she and her cameraman were set upon by young men in the square then separated.
She said she was punched, then “subjected to a sexual aggression in front of everyone in full daylight.”
Providing more detail in an interview with RMC radio, she said boys 14 to 16 years old “tore off my clothes and undergarments” and assaulted her.
BBC: Zzzzzzzzz
Journalist Mona Eltahawy was also assaulted. The BBC knows her, so one wonders if they’ll ask her about this next time they have her on Newsnight.
I just spent a few minutes looking through the BBC coverage of today’s riot…sorry….protest. The only women I saw were either buying stuff from the food stalls on the outskirts of Tahrir Square, or in an obviously segregated area. There must have been only a handful of them, and they were obviously hemmed in, as the photo in the BBC slideshow was the only one in a tightly cropped portrait layout as opposed to landscape.
Not a single mention by Lyse Doucet or any of the Beeboids doing the live text that there were hardly any women, and those few who where there were segregated or not really participating.
You can bet the BBC will censor all news of these latest sexual assaults by their darlings until reality forces them to do so.
yup! becoming a regular occurence hmmm (remember lara logan New York Times, April 28),
to everyone apart from those with eyes tightly shut to reality, (bbc)
ahhhh “sunni” days ahead .
simultaneously… never mind eh…
the red cresent of iraq, syria iran is racing toward fruition
bbc can t wait, oh the “shia” joy, the rich erm “culture” that will be expressed.
what could go wrong 🙂 ?
In the main BBC story about Egypt today, they have their own Lyse Doucet telling us
The BBC’s Lyse Doucet in Tahrir Square says the carnival atmosphere returned to the demonstrations after a truce was agreed to end the violence seen earlier in the week.
People are letting off fireworks and shouting “Down with the military regime,” she says.Perhaps if she gets assaulted in a similar way she won’t think it’s such a ‘carnival atmosphere’, unless of course – she enjoys it.
i think whether she enjoys it or not is immaterial, would she or to be predantic the bbc report it?
they would be in quite a quandry….
…………what now?, which way to go?, who am i? etc
In the latest BBC article on Egypt they repeat Doucet’s ‘carnival atmosphere’ theme, and also include this snippet by Yolande Knell
BBC News, Cairo “Start Quote
The vendors selling tea and toffee apples are again doing an excellent trade in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, lending a festive atmosphere to this demonstration”
It’s ‘Arab Springiness’ all over again. I’d say ditto for this female journalist as for Doucet, but I think she’s safe.
The only way the BBC might deter terrorism is if potential jihadists see this woman and wonder about the strong possibility of her being a virgin.
don t know about that bud..but
the usual bias this morning, the 1000s protesters camped out B/S….takes a knock, when the film behind shows 20 odd scrappy tents,& someone having a fag. 🙂
look its the brotherhood keeping the propaganda going, whilst preparing to take a seat at the table.
the problems have not even started yet…..sorry to (juden)rein on the
el beeb parade.
bugger……i wish i could change the record
oh well…..what could go wrong 😀 ?
I’m sure you don’t listen to it and it must be a pure accident that I quite often hear it on the way to work – but do you ever come across the Terry Wogan programme on Radio 2 in the mornings ? I believe it has the biggest radio audience in the UK – several million perhaps.
Terry Wogan doesn’t have a particularly good environmental record in his personal life – something about planting trees in Caithness as a tax avoidance measure some years ago ?
Anyway, he has a real down on climate change, especially just now, and makes repeated disparaging remarks. Yesterday (13/1/04) he actually made some comment about it being promoted by “bad scientists”.
Rather than just complaining to the BBC, I wondered if you might consider inviting him to the Tyndall Centre to try and persuade him how well researched and serious the issue is and hopefully getting him to talk some sense on his show.
Best wishes, James
Professor James Curran
Environmental Futures
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Corporate Office
Erskine Court, Castle Business Park
STIRLING FK9 4TR Scotland
This one says it all:
From: Phil Jones [mailto:???@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 22 May 2007 11:13
To: Jon Stewart
Subject: Re: BBC science radio Climate Change
Jon,
A brief reply as I’m preparing for a meeting the rest of the
week. I’ll be back in all next week and also all of June.
Other people you might like to contact are Mike Schlesinger <???@atmos.uiuc.edu> – been in the subject since the 1970s, now more involved in policy issues in the US.
“Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)” <???@metoffice.gov.uk>
– been in the subject as long on the climate modelling side. He is now head of Climate Research at the Met Office.
There are others, but you have appear to have a critical number with these two and those you had.
I guess it’s taken 30 years to get to such a high level of acceptance/agreement because the modelling has improved and things are beginning to happen in the observations.
There has also been 4 IPCC Reports each one stronger than the previous.
There is an interesting chapter at the start of the current ‘Science/WG1’ report on the history of IPCC. You can get this from (details below). Look at Chapter 1, which gives the predictions from the first 3 reports compared to what has happened.
Even though the issue has the prominence it has, not much has
happened to reduce future impacts. Many govts are stalling and there is still a band of skeptics making lots of waves trying to muddy waters.
The BBC is raising the issue at every opportunity, so you’re doing your bit.
Cheers
Phil
One more just to show how nice Phil Jones is:
At 09:56 AM 12/10/2004, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
Your link works fine. Got the email about realclimate from Gavin . Someone else sentit around here, as a joke, asking us to guess which skeptic group had set it up !!
Did one of the Brits come up with the title – real IRA ….
Anyway it looks good !
This might be some of the appalling drivel you might want to comment on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4066189.stm
It is really bad, but quite funny in a way. We should all go on logic courses,but he should be the one going first ! How do the Dutch decide when they have to move without planning !
I complained to the editor of BBC online and it sneaked through without being read !
Apparently they get loads of these and reject most, but then get accused of bias by the skeptics. BBC didn’t run at all with the awful report that the Marshall Inst.and some newish group in London put out. Timed deliberately (no coincidence) for COP-10. I still don’t seem to be able to get the report – bet it doesn’t really exist !
Maybe you should say on realclimate that you’re restoring clarity and accuracy to the debate (see their claim below) ! This would then be true. They are just stirring it up. No real need to read on. It is the usual garbage !
Cheers
Phil
I expect Dr Martin Keeley was not allowed on the BBC after that.
Sorry this is the last for now:
date: Thu Jul 15 16:25:46 2004
from: Phil Jones <???@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Paleo data
to: ???@duke.edu
Dear All,Gabi,
I was answering one of the skeptics yesterday. The answer is below. To see the original there is a pdf link near the end. No need to read, but Tom might like to see it.
Susan Solomon was here on Tuesday getting an honorary degree. She says we will have to deal with all these crackpots in the IPCC ! There will be a number in the atmos obs, paleo and in your chapter I suspect – will likely be the hardest bits to write.
Still awaiting from you a revised draft to comment for IDAG.
As for your email, there was some press activity related to this skeptic below, but managed to talk the BBC out of doing anything. …..
Cheers
Phil
Not sure to which piece they refer, but once again Jones has had a word with the BBC and put them straight.
This is the “skeptic” they are reffering to
http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=66
Notice also how they address others who do not agree with his view of the world. Jones is a nasty peice of work and a bully.
John Horne Took: guess you’ve seen this before but watch it again and enjoy.
7’04” onwards…the definition of “squirm”.
Yes, he really does not answer the questions at all. The MP was spot on.
Notice how he came across like some timid man being more sinned against than sinned.
But we know better:
Tom,
You’ve probably seen this response to a truly awful paper in IJC. Aiguo did a really good job. Apparently, these two jerks have submitted a response to the comment. Wonder what they will say ? Adrian Chappell still thinks his analysis is correct !
Cheers
Phil
I bet after being quized by an MP who knew what he was talking about, he went home and kicked the cat.
Why did Jones refuse to give out his data to a skeptical scientist who wanted to check it out?
“Because we had a lot of work and resources invested in it.”
*facepalm*
Billy Paul’s song, as applied to the Jones, and the BBC Environmental puppets (and Mann, for that matter…)
Me and Mr. Jones, we got a thing going on,
we both know that it’s wrong…
Oops! http://twitpic.com/5cwcgw
I didn’t know that Rudd thought the IPCC was composed of 4,000 scientsits he did not get this from the BBc did he?
In China, riots due to social unrest:
…are a daily occurrence. According to official statistics, there were 127,000 so-called “mass incidents” in 2010 alone – an average of over 340 per day.
BBC: ZZZzzzzzzzzz
Here’s a quick search of the BBC website for “China mass incidents” http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=china%20mass%20incidents produces plenty of evidence this is well reported by the BBC.
127,000 incidents in 2010, all the BBC can manage is two reports, and the best one can say is that there are “thousands” of them every years, and you’re gloating? This hardly gives a sense of what’s really going on. The latest one – out of five total – is sillier: “mass incidents are on the rise”. This outrageous total should be sexy enough for a story on its own.
Although, I grant you the reporting on China isn’t as bad as the BBC’s reporting on Occupy Wall Street.
The sheer number and scope of these incidents, combined with the recent bursting of the real estate bubble, and all those empty cities about which your own Robert Peston made a special feature (without really connecting the dots) should be telling you all that the situation in China is far more important than you think.
I’m not gloating. Just pointing out that “zzzzzzzzzzzz” isn’t really a fiar summary of the BBC’s reporting. That’s just a simple search on the (not always terrible good) BBC search engine. Bit of Google-Fu and a quick trip through internal library systems may well turn up much more.
As I said, it’s hardly “zzzzzzzzzzz”
Absolutely correct.
“zzzzzzzzzzzz” is no fiar.
It should be amended to ““zzzzzzzzzzz” or maybe even “zzzzzzzz”.
As these may better reflect adequately the relative coverage?
David G, I’m sorry, but it is a fair assessment. The BBC hasn’t done a report admitting the full total of “mass incidents” in 2010. It’s not “thousands”, but tens of thousands. My “ZZZZzzzzz” on that score stands. As for the rest of the reporting, it’s rather watered down, and your colleagues have clearly failed to create an accurate impression of what’s going on.
An yet you have no comment on the content of the climategate emails Mr Gregory?
Maybe you have been ordered to ignore all references to climategate until a BBC approved response can be worked out?
Out of context/stolen/hacked, none so blind as they who will not see.
Actually Cassie you didn’t respond to me when I discussed that graph you produced which I thought was interesting.
As for the emails, well frankly as a scientist myself it was pretty much what you’d expect if you published my private emails from my time in the lab. Bitchy, gossipy but for the most part very tedious. And no smoking gun. Fortunately scientists rely on published papers in journals rather than private emails. I notice that “interpretor of interpretors” James Dellingpool was reduced to revealing emails containing bad poetry this time around. It’s not really “hide the decline” is it?
I think you certainly could make the argument the BBC should trust it’s audience a bit more and go into more detail about results that we don’t currently understand. Indeed I do feel that perhaps an lack of a really confident grasp of data and the limitations of science sometmes leaves us sticking too closely to a narrative when there’s nothing wrong with confessing we don’t understand something. Yet.
But the science says climate change is real and we’re to blame for the most part. What you do about that though is politics.
Back to your graph, you seemed to think it was some sort of represenation of global temperature, you do realise it was just the US record?
‘you didn’t respond to me’
Whilst we all have had fruitful exchanges, they can also reach natural breaks. But as raised, might we agree that not getting responded to is an area of precedent the BBC could address better? Especially as a service provider to its paying customers?
‘But the science says climate change is real and we’re to blame for the most part.’
Purely on a scientific basis, with a slight overlap on its reporting, given that most (an important caveat I now realise) on all ‘sides’ of the debates in this arena appear to agree the climate does change, do you feel using such two words in isolation, especially when unfairly associated with ‘scepticism’ or, wose, ‘denial’, is legitimate, in professional, objective reporting terms?
If so, may we at least anticipate the potentially human activity-worsened qualifier at least to be always present, no matter that the extent of the anthropropgenic component is surely still a matter of some debate even scientifically, and whilst the cost:benefit factors of mitigation, reversal or simply adapting are even more hotly discussed politically and/or economically in complement?
This at the very least may serve to focus minds on the consequences of consumer activity on claimed climatic reponses, perhaps reducing the ability for some to split standards between what they do and say (from flying to tweet on iPods at conferences) and what they appear to feel is necessary more for others to adopt?
Thanks in anticipation.
ps: I know how particular you are on titles and unnecessary disrespect, so should point out the undoubted unwitting typo here: James Dellingpool. Maybe a name not so familiar?
Not to mention addressing the esteemed contributor as “Cassie”, rather than by a formal title of respect. =-O
I’m sorry that this question, which I have tried to keep based purely on a matter of science based policy and away from co-worker commentary, seems to have proven unable to generate a reply.
Much like the CRU it’s a question of how much time you devote to the core activity and how much to dealing with enquries and complaints. And indeed compliments and questions about music used in programmes, the dress worn by a contributor the particular location used or the name of a programme that feautured that woman from the thing that was broadcast last week or month on BBC Two. Or One.
Anyway, My Site… I’m none the wiser as to what your question is. Can you get it down to a sentance?
Thanks for replying, albiet in the standard BBC fashion which is to say no response at all that actually means anything. But still reply you did and I thank you for it David.
I did know the graph was for the USA, as the CAGW fraud has always used the measure of the continental USA temperature series due to that continent having by far the most weather stations you could say it represents what world temperatures are doing and will do in the future. But the graph clearly shows the models up for what they are, or more accurately what they are not. Most of the planet has no weather stations, in fact 70% of the earths surface has barely a handful of data supplying stations.
Climategate2?
Did you actually read all the emails yet, you are a faster reader than me for sure but what comes through is the dishonesty, the deceit, the ignorance, the rent seeking absurdity, the utterly pathetic nature of this supposed ‘science’.
The BBC is featured in the emails, they are closely linked to the UEA fraudsters in actively pimping big eco propaganda but also keeping dissent out and dissident scientists out and contrary science out.
“But the science says climate change is real and we’re to blame for the most part.”
The science does not say any such thing David, you are obviously not up to speed on the latest IPCC findings which states that natural variability is responsible for most of the warming we have seen and may expect to see into the medium term. There is plenty of science which categorically contradicts your statement.
Now you are supposed to be some kind of big brained science dude right? If so then you should be up to speed with the work all scientists in the field and not just the rent seekers/big eco/watermellons.
Global temperatures are not rising yet CO2 is, does that not at least come up on your radar as interesting? That sea levels are falling, does it not cause a mental itch? Global sea ice is not disappearing as promised but actually stable within normal cyclic bounds, are you not in the least interested in why?
Anyone with an independent mind and who has looked at the facts should be a sceptic/dissenter/denier of the consensus, it is how science has moved on from phlogiston and other such consensus idiocy.
Yours as ever
Your friend
Cassie K (still cant spell but has a mind of her own) :*
The thing is Cassie your single unatributed graph was supposed to be devasting proof that I must see but would be too scared to report on. Yet it’s one bloke on a blog who’s had a quick pick throught the data for one bit of the globe. Fortunately (thanks in now small part to the activities of those who think there is a problem with the science) much of the data is available for people to have a play with. And while a bloke-with-a-blog is certainly interesting I’d always go with the physicist with the confidence to handle data. Remind me what they found again http://berkeleyearth.org/study.php ?
Meanwhile, since even the above won’t convince you let’s try something else. What do you think is wrong with the Standard Model in Physics? And can you voice two or three likely problems with the Opera experiment?
David, you say you would go with the findings of a physicist who know how to handle data than those from ” a bloke with a blog”. So I take it you would still go with someone like Michael Mann and his “hockey stick” graph than the “bloke with a blog” Steve Macintyre who discovered that Mann had input an algorithm into his programme that would create the hockey stick shape no matter what dat what fed into the computer model?
No wonder Mann fights tooth and nail to prevent others from reviewing his data.
David,
“The thing is Cassie your single unatributed graph was supposed to be devasting proof that I must see but would be too scared to report on.”
I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that you would be too frightened to report on this NOAA assesment, the BBC would make your life a living misery if you dared David. I can see that if you dared to contradict the BBC narrative your carreer would be effectively over. In fact the graph was from NOAA, you might know them as a leading authority in the USA? I do not think I could present you with a more authoratative temperature series, still I suppose you get your graphs from Mann/WWF/FoE/greenpiss and the UEA, that gang of rent seeking scoundrels, you may remember them from the climategate 1 & 2 emails.
OK, you have stated clearly that the science is settled in your opinon, there is no doubt that humans are causing the recent period of slight warming that ended over a decade ago. Have I got that right David? A scientist who sees no need to update his scientific knowledge with the latest research if that research contradicts the previous state of knowledge.
“But the science says climate change is real and we’re to blame for the most part”
The science says no such thing David, a group of rent seeking charalatans allied to a collection of watermellon eco fascist big eco looters claim it, nothing to do with science as we know it but a chap called Lysenko would certainly recognize it.
“What do you think is wrong with the Standard Model in Physics?”
Oh David, if you actually think the standard model in physics supports the case for CAGW then there really is no hope for you, it does not but then again the so called standard model is not a definitive and final destination, it is a work in progress ever modified to accomodate new theories based on…wait for it…observations.
There is no actual proof that CO2 has the effect prescribed to it, the observed evidence contradicts it completely, the Vostok ice cores refute it utterly, global temperatures today prove the theory wrong.
Nothing yet from you about the emails concerning the BBC and big eco, still waiting David. You will eventually admit that you and the BBC backed the wrong horse, that CO2 is a harmless trace gas and plantfood and that billions has been wasted on the CAGW fraud, and I want to be around when you do, I will not gloat but welcome you back into the real world.
Yours
Cassie K.
“ In fact the graph was from NOAA, you might know them as a leading authority in the USA?”
No it wasn’t. It uses NOAA data. But having tracked down the bloke-with-a-blog who did his own analysis… well I’m not persuaded by what he’s done at all. It’s certainly not come directly from the NOAA themselves.
As for the standard model. I was just trying to see what your position is on other huge science stories. Do you think the researchers at CERN are idiots and liars? Or do you believe what they have discovered? And why is you approach to those stories any different to research into climate change?
“But the science says climate change is real and we’re to blame for the most part”
As a scientist yourself you must know that that assertion is utter horseshit.
“But the science says climate change is real and we’re to blame for the most part.”
The climate changed before man set foot on it – who changed it then?
Of course climate change is “real” who denies that. Does your physics training not tell you that climate change is not an issue and never has been. This shows how dishonest you and your chums at the BBC really are.
What you mean is “Man made” CO2 is causing the climate to change. Which is a differnt thing.( and also very much not the “consensus”)
I know the new theory – that CO2 did not cause warming in the past – that was down to the sun – but since the colapse of communism CO2 caused temperatures to rise. Therefore the nasty west must close down all their power stations and live in caves while the communists in China take over the world.
I think that is the gist of it. Why else would politicians let Chinas’ emmisions grow and grow while the UK which contributes realtivly little CO2 to the atmospheare close down what is left of its industry. If that is going to “save the world” then I am a Dutch man
“horseshit” and “dishonest” hang on… i’ve gone of these somewhere… here you go…. *sigh*
So you stick by that statement? Can you tell me then why the climate chaged before man even set fire to a twig? Your statement is dishonest and misleading it gives the immpresion that climate is static and has not changed very much before man.
Why don’t you look it up on your own employers web site
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_causes/Geologic_temperature_record
Do you see any massive climate changes taking place before man? A lot of them very dramatic shifts.
And what of the temperature data? How many weather stations were there in say 1850? How many are there today?
What happenes if you don’t “adjust” the data? (see picture).
For global tepmeratures the only reliable measuremets are from satellites and then only from 1979. Is that long enough to make a judgement?
“i’ve gone of these somewhere… here you go…. *sigh*
Typical answer by a dishonest “scientist”. Don’t have the answers so try and belittle those who challenge ridiculous statements. Iexpect the chief alarmist Black would not make a statement like yours.
That graph is the one David should be looking at, he will not of course do so. Present a believer with evidence and they close up fast, nothing can be allowed to weaken the beliefs of the cultist, the truth in fact hurts the believer.
David badly needs a deprogrammer expert in cults.
Cassie one graph from the AirVent blog http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/cru-3-the-next-step/ isn’t evidence.
I have to say having read what you’ve posted I now agree with Melanie Phillips. This “all must have prizes” mentality leads people like me to politely engage with you on the science. And that’s a mistake because you just aren’t bright enought to understand it. Nothing wrong with that, science is hard.
Nothing to stop you having firm opinions on everything from the rate of solar FIT to the problem of China’s use of coal. But when it comes to actually understanding the science and what researchers are doing you haven’t a clue.
Because random graphs off of random blogs isn’t science.
So then…a million uneployed youngsters in need of work.
Two million pew-fillers and union dupes about to go out on Wednesday on a Day of Dossing.
Couldn`t we do a job-share (morning/afternoon?) and send the Barber Girls n Boys their P45s…that would surely help us deal with youth unemployment in one stroke.
Seemples!
Alternatively, maybe the youthful unemployed could be paid to briefly wave their placards outside town halls across the land and then shove off down the pub (the regular Friday m.o. of those of my teachers who were NUT members back in the 80’s), freeing up the would-be strikers to carry out the work they’re bloody well paid to do. Double meaning on “well-paid”.
Was v. impressed with tonight’s Newsnight for exploding the myth that there’s a huge gulf between Labour and the Coalition on spending.
Ed Balls’s ‘too far, too fast’ claim is based on just a £5 billion difference between what the Coalition are spending and what Labour would have spent if they’d won the election!
Jeff
Yes.like you I thought it better than the normal crap that the BBC put out.
Even a couple of solid conservative opinions in Question Time…I assume it was because it came from Bath and not Bradford.
Who knows?…maybe even the BBC see how much of an obvious laughing stock they are.
Heard something on Radio 4 this morning that credited Pratchetts “Dignitas” documentary with some bloke then going to Switzerland to finish himself off.
Expect this one to get a few repeats then pretty soon ,and especially as it`s getting colder…
that there have been a couple of hopeful straws in the wind does not mean that the BBC will let euthanasia go unsupported…must be costing them a few license fees as long as the old buggers aren`t paying for them!
£5 billion out of total government spend of around £700 billion is about 0.7%. Less than margin of error in accounts?
BBC online journalist Kate Dailey:
@katedailey Kate Dailey Malia Obama is so tall! And has such good posture! Yes, I sound like your grandma, but as a former gangly teen, she’s my put-together hero.
I think some of these BBC US hacks actually worship the Obamas.
They’re an inspiration to us all. >:o
With their tongues, apparently!
Climategate: A symptom of driving science off a cliff
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/25/climategate_symptoms/
Scroll down to see Paxman.
Lyse Doucet and Wyre Davies must have missed this part of the carnival atmosphere in Cairo:
Cairo rally: One day we’ll kill all Jews
Muslim Brotherhood holds venomous anti-Israel rally in Cairo mosque Friday; Islamic activists chant: Tel Aviv, judgment day has come
are you trying to judenrein on the…(indanger female reporters
“carnival atmosphere”?)…..parade david? 😀
“vendors selling tea and toffee apples are again doing an excellent trade in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, lending a festive atmosphere to this demonstration” goodness what could go wrong
….all together
la de da…..springtime for hitler…and germany
Tomorrow belongs to them?
INBBC on Egypt, and ‘Jihadwatch’ on Egypt:
‘Jihadwatch’:
Egypt: Tourism tanks; hotel manager says “we’re deeply afraid of the Islamic groups at the moment”
[Opening excerpt refers to INBBC reports]:-
“Is deputy hotel manager Hossam al-Bana an Islamophobe?
The Salafist leader, whom the BBC compliments as ‘thoughtful and personable,’ acts as if the entire issue is about alcohol. What is at issue is not being harassed on vacation, and being able to relax without the fear of a dream vacation turning into a nightmare at the hands of a regime of thugs, in an atmosphere where conspiracy paranoia easily becomes hysteria. The atmosphere of hostility toward non-Muslims within the country may make non-Muslim tourists think twice as well. For women, there is also the issue of whether their bodily integrity would be respected in a place where sexual harassment and assaults go un-prosecuted, with victims blamed for not meeting standards of Islamic dress and conduct.
Really, who in the world would want to vacation in a country where churches are attacked and protesters are rammed by military vehicles, journalists are sexually assaulted, Jews are arrested as “spies,” sexual harassment is accepted and encouraged, and the rate of female genital mutilation (see table below the map) is above 90 percent?
Egypt has a bit of a public relations problem there. ‘Egypt’s tourism hit hard by ongoing unrest,’ by Kevin Connolly for BBC News, “
excellent and might i say true george, its also true hitler was elected, also true that in the main trainstations you can more easily pick up mein kampf or the elders of zion, than indepth history of egypt…
……concerning
Kevin Connolly in Egypt on Today.
A jokey piece, about branding. After telling us what it is, and what sort of people do it for a living (People with coloured spectacle frames) he got round to providing a humorous commentary on the logos that represent various obscure political parties in the forthcoming Egyptian elections and the multitudes of independent candidates that no-one will have heard of.
The pictorial images will aid the many illiterate voters, and Connolly made several witty suggestions about what certain images might symbolise. For instance he dreaded to think what the screwdriver might imply, and hoho, whatever could the dining chair mean?
“We just have to hope that “missile man” isn’t a supporter of disarmament.” (Why? I’d have thought it would be more apt to hope he was a supporter of disarmament.)
Taking a lighthearted approach is all very well, but the hint of superiority and sarcasm he applied to this topic sounded arrogant and I thought it highlighted Connolly’s inability to engage with the subject without looking down at it from the perspective of an amused Englishman, with little attempt to get past the superficial side of a serious subject.
Although he alluded to the confusion, the disorganised hopelessness
that appears to be the main feature of the current situation, he ignored the nitty gritty altogether, which is the rising Islamism that is hovering menacingly over the whole region.
Agreed, sue. Don’t you love it when colonials laugh at the messy behavior of the local darkies?
We know that the climate alarmists are happy to use false images (eg polar bears photoshopped on to small ice floes) – as well as false graphs.
WattsUpWithThat has a story about power station images being photoshopped to suggest they emit filthy black smoke – when in fact they usually emit mainly water vapour.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/25/photoshopping-in-the-worseness/#more-51916
Guess who makes abundant use of such false images – often on stories that have nothing to do with power stations ? Yep – the lying BBC. A cute programme can track down on the web all uses of an image, and the BBC is a frequent user of two of the bad ones :
http://www.tineye.com/search/4c821b1f1aeb47043d28aa5c142792535a388bec/?page=9&sort=score&order=desc
http://www.tineye.com/search/4b89c7b03e152530382a2468f53f612987e14ae0/
Q’uelle surprise…
“‘Poorly paid’ David Dimbleby is BBC cuts victim.
“David Dimbleby, the host of Question Time, complains that he has been forced to take a pay cut by the BBC. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8916697/Poorly-paid-David-Dimbleby-is-BBC-cuts-victim.html
Good God, the man only got the job in the first place because his father worked for them! Ditto his equally useless brother.
UH OH!…..hopefully not as US correspondent for a national broadcaster i could mention.
“Occupy” Miami boss led ‘Nuke Israel’ rally,” by Aaron Klein for World Net Da
The Occupiers have form on anti-Israel activity. In Boston, they tried to occupy the Israeli consulate. The BBC didn’t notice that, either, never mind the various openly anti-Semitic statements of some Occupiers.
Of course, contrary to how they handled the Tea Party movement, the Beeboids wouldn’t dream of tarring the majority of their darling Occupiers with these anti-Israel and anti-Jewish voices.
May I make a humble suggestion?
‘nowhere to be seen’ posts are tempting, but open any forum without the research resources and staffing of a vast, over-staffed corporation to distracting ‘gotchas’ when said resources do get deployed, and any potentially legitimate main point gets consumed, inevitably, with dead ends debating strictly angels on a pin.
Such absolutes are a minefield, as even (or especially) the BBC knows, but relies on all the inherent shenanigans of proving negatives or absent positives to either stealth edit, ignore, faux apology or bare faced deny with an ‘about right’ cherry on top.
Often egregious ediotorial by omission IS a significant story in itself, but I’d reccomend couching examples in terms that give the cherry vultures such weak comback opportunities (‘it was on Ceebeebies in 1973’ looks even sillier if one is citing curiously muted coverage of ME issues in 2011 – hecnce at least an ‘evident’ qualifier… with luck that satirical ‘example’ will be ceased upon by the irony free zone crew, or at least have ’em scurrying through the archives) they might even get out more at the weekend.
I absolutely do not wish to see any factual inaccuracy left uncorrected or ignored, as the £3-4Bpa uniquely funded BBC monopoly condones (and hence value the opportunity presented by such occasions to make this point, which seems to see a period of muted activity) usually with only limited, modded avenues for timely correction, but with suitable semantic caveats we may find the tireome petty point scoring reduced in favour of more substantive fare.
And, who knows, if truly substantive, other aspects of BBC bias may get discussed freely in open forum?
Unless a period of further hibernation suddenly gets inspired.
Either way, win-win?
For INBBC’s information: today is the third anniversary of the Islamic jihad killings in MUMBAI.
While INBBC’s Muslim Pakistani reporters write on behalf of the Pakistan army today, there is no mention of this:
‘Times of India’:
“26/11 attacks: Bring perpetrators of Mumbai attacks to speedy justice, India tells Pak”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/26/11-attacks-Bring-perpetrators-of-Mumbai-attacks-to-speedy-justice-India-tells-Pak/articleshow/10879081.cms
Just stumbled on a corker. Turns out ALL weather reporting (certainly in the regions) is supplied by a company called WEATHERQUEST. Have a guess where they are based…?
UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA. You cant make it up.
suggest googling weatherquest and have a snoop around.
In London its bleedin freezing, In Scotland its really bleedin freezing, in Potato munching country the fens its bleedin freezing.
Put all these together and let weatherquest/BBC get hold of it and it becomes the hottest ever. Obviously the BBC adds a couple of degrees on every forecast of daily highs, just to be sure you understand.
Its getting rather Soviet union isnt it?
Good catch, Jim. At your suggestion, in less than a minute I found this from BBC Norfolk, which is essentially an advertisement for Weatherquest:
The agricultural nature of Norfolk means that many people’s livelihoods are dependant on the weather and the personalised forecasts provided by Weatherquest play a vital role in their day-to-day business.
Weatherquest is owned by senior uni employees, and makes use of uni facilities. Sounds like corruption to me. Like the BBC programme procurement process favouring senior execs’ film companies….or Labour councillors and council staff getting new fatcat jobs with stock transfer housing associations.
Left = bent. Wonder what Weatherquest pays in kickbacks to BBC procurers?
Some more polar bears in danger here..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music–game-shows.html
Here is a little light reading for our resident CAGW believer David Gregory. It appears David has read all the emails already and found nothing in them, perhaps he missed these examples? Anyway meanwhile back at the ranch, read on and knock yourself out, if you dont find the exchanges disturbing there is something wrong.
New Revelations Cast Doubt On Climategate Inquiries
The head of a key British climate lab, a central figure in the 2009 “Climategate” scandal, thought requests made under Great Britain’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) were a nuisance that should be stonewalled while crucial correspondence is deleted — unless someone pays up first, that is.
“I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent,” wrote Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, according to a December 2008 email leaked to a Russian website Tuesday.
“There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time going through these,” the email reads.
The correspondence was one of 5,000 emails stolen from the servers at the University of East Anglia’s climate research facility in England and posted online Tuesday. Along with the day-to-day work of science, the emails reveal internal debates, anger at skeptics and even deception from scientists investigation whether man’s actions are warming the planet.
The newly leaked emails span from 2000 to 2009 and fill in correspondence first seen in December 2009, when a batch of emails from the data breach dubbed “Climategate” turned the world’s attention to East Anglia. University spokesman Simon Dunford told the Associated Press that a small sample examined by the university “appears to be genuine.”
According to the December 2008 email exchange, Jones wrote to David Palmer, the information policy and compliance manager for East Anglia’s research unit at the time, arguing that unless a fee accompanied a FOIA request for information, he didn’t need to bother going to the trouble of replying.
“Dave, do I understand it correctly — if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond?” Jones asked. The sum he requested, £10, is worth about $16 U.S. dollars.
“No, we don’t have to respond unless we get the £10,” Palmer told Jones — before reading him the riot act over deleting emails, a direct violation of Britain’s Data Protection Act of 1998, he said.
Neither Jones nor Palmer responded to FoxNews.com requests to confirm the validity of the email correspondence, although Jones said Wednesday morning in a press conference that the emails were being “cherry-picked” and explained away many of the messages.
The email echoes other correspondence from Jones discovered in 2009. Jones admitted to the House of Commons in 2010 that he had “written some very awful emails,” including one in which he rejected a request for information on the ground that the person receiving it might criticize his work.
Lisa Horton, a spokeswoman with the university, pointed to a website statement attacking the timing of the release.
“This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and [a] number of studies – including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group.”
Steven McIntyre, a noted climate skeptic and author of the blog Climate Audit, disputed those vindications vehemently.
“Unfortunately none of the ‘inquiries’ did even a reasonable job,” he told FoxNews.com. “None of them interviewed any of the critics … there were no transcripts. The inquiries made erroneous findings on facts known to thousands.” “In my opinion, the ‘inquiries’ have actually made matters worse,” McIntyre told FoxNews.com.
The newly released emails come less than a week before the Nov. 28 opening of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 17) in Durban, South Africa, which is intended to control carbon emissions and monitor the world’s climate — a fact underscored in a document that accompanied the leaked emails.
SOURCE
. . . . and David Gregory? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ (to quote David Preiser)
The Zzzzzzz started with Martin, I think.
“…emails stolen from the servers at the University of East Anglia’s”
Reading the nasty vindicive emails I would say that Jones has bullied someone for too long and an insider has leaked them.
There is of course no evidence they were stolen.
A BBC report into a series of attacks on students in Leeds.
Ten people, mainly students, have been assaulted and robbed in just half an hour in Leeds.
Police said a group of 10 to 15 men were involved in seven incidents in the Woodhouse area of the city between 20:00 and 20:30 GMT on Wednesday.
Officers said victims had been threatened and assaulted and two people required hospital treatment…
One of the students said he and other victims had been “helpless”.
He said: “It was just savage there were so many people.
“There was nothing you could do – as soon as you lifted your head off the floor someone stamped on you. It was just horrible.”
Concerned students and parents needed to turn elsewhere for the extra details.
The Guardian:
A statement from West Yorkshire police said that they involved a group of 10 to 15 black males who had their faces covered.
The Huffington Post:
The incident involved a group of 10 to 15 masked black males who threatened the students into handing over valuables.
Yup, even the Guardian and Huffpo give their readers the information needed to help avoid becoming future victims. The BBC, on the other hand, thinks political correctness should take priority.
What does our resident Beeboid apparatchik David Gregory think?
Do you think the fact that these thugs were black should have been reported David?
Compare and contrast. During the London riots this summer:
@bbc5live BBC Radio 5 Live We estimate 150 – 200 young white men confronting police in #Eltham – similar number of police – uniform & riot police
10 Aug
DB – the Eltham whites were targetted by police for trying to protect their community against a twitter-threatened black riot and looting spree. Being white working class, they were regarded as the real problem – by beeboids and by the establishment in general.
This is also happenning in the US. I think there is probably a link in that behaviour patterns spread very easily these days.
Of course the BBC will be evasive as the need to avoid reality is paramount.
Reality is saying our cities are becoming increasingly dangerous particularly for cosseted white suburban children not able to take care of themselves.
Unless change happens soon our cities will become no go zones unless heavily policed.
It has been coming for a long time but the powers that be will do anything to avoid a confrontation with reality.
To find out just how prevalent this ‘wilding’/’polar bear hunting’ is in the USA you have to go around their MSM, who will bend over backwards to downplay/suppress any incidents, disguise the culprits, print some hokum about the perpetrators being of essentially good character, & abjectly fail to point out the widespread scale of what is now a concerted, increasingly audacious attack on whites. Particularly since Obama came to office. The BBC, of course, with its slavish devotion to multiculturalism, does likewise with black/muslim crime in the UK. The accumulated facts would be just too damaging to their ‘narrative’.
A recent confrontation with Somali thugs in my own ‘hood had distinctly racial overtones, not on my part, but on theirs. They were well aware of what they were doing. After I’d told them forcefully to hook it, & leave my family alone, one of them, adopting the voice of an aggrieved white householder said,’Officer, there’s 12 bad negroes banging on my door!’ Much knowing laughter as they departed. Now I wonder where they got that from?
this has happened for years, it was one of the BBC ‘omissions’ regularly bought up on the R5L news boards before they closed. The stupid thing that on ocssion the BBC article was stating that the police were asking for people to come forward yet the BBC were withholding important identification info.
Surely the word ‘black’ is a tautology when discussing any street crime?
The BBC Narrative on hyper-Keynesian economics continues on Today, with LSE grad and genetic Beeboid Justin Webb leading a debate on how wrong it would be for George Osborne not to alter his plan of not borrowing/printing any more money in the face of the Euro crisis.
I say the debate is on how wrong Osborne is rather than a debate about whether he’s right or wrong because of the way it’s set up. The segment starts off with the BBC attempting to slightly undermine Osborne by saying:
“Some figures on the right, such as Conservative MP David Ruffley, are urging him to borrow a bit more to cut taxes to stimulate the economy.”
Tory Splits! I do appreciate that the BBC now views tax cuts as a legitimate means to stimulate the economy (too bad Webb’s successor in the US hasn’t gotten that memo yet), although it’s a bit rich coming from the same BBC who screams whenever someone suggests dropping the 50p rate. But this is clearly meant to show that Osborne doesn’t even have the full support of his own party, which serves to undercut his position, even before the debate begins.
The debate is between a UBS advisor who basically demands the printing of more money, declaring that the “mantra” heard from the ministers who keep telling the Today programme that borrowing more money now would be a bad idea is “rubbish”. The female opponent, a financial consultant for a different firm, doesn’t even really say that Osborne is right. She mostly says things are going to be bad anyway, and the Chancellor doesn’t really have that much room to maneuver. She does take a contrary position to the UBS guy, but it’s not really in support of Osborne per se. She even laughs at the growth forecasts. I guess that counts as balance for the BBC, though.
As an ignorant layman without the benefit of a classical LSE education, I fail to understand how adding even more to the deficit, which the UBS guy and ol’ Justin both advocate, wouldn’t cause the deficit targets “to retreat ever further into the distance”. But the message was clear: Osborne is wrong, and it’s just a question of how much.
(Side note: I wonder if “Two Eds” Flanders would be nauseated to hear even the UBS guy say that the UK is considered a safe haven for investment in the face of the Euro crisis.)
What strikes me most about this segment, though, is what it means in the larger context of BBC coverage of the economy in general. When Gordon Brown was in charge, the “It All Started In America” defense was considered valid. It wasn’t his fault, it takes time to recover, etc. The same goes for the US economy under the stewardship of The Obamessiah: He inherited a mess, is doing the best He can against Republican ideological instransigence, etc.
Yet, when it comes to a Tory Chancellor, even knowing that the Euro crash is going to hurt Britain along the same lines as the US crisis did, the BBC is going to blame Osborne’s policies instead. And he hasn’t even been in Government for as long as Brown or The Obamessiah had when they were still getting the benefit of the doubt. Combine this with the sighing (on any show not involving Andrew Neil, that is) we often hear when a Tory MP says they’re trying to fix the mess they inherited from Labour, and we can see the BBC Narrative for what it is.
DP
You’re right on the button – as usual. However, don’t expect a rejoinder from David Gregory. After all, you’ve not made a spelling error.
DP, did you see this tweet from Justin Webb on Thursday about socioligist Craig Calhoun taking over as new LSE director?
@JustinOnWeb justin webb Good that clever American Craig Calhoun coming to LSE tinyurl.com/cutsqy2 Does he get his news from Fox? Will be a fav on @BBCr4today
I’ve checked out a couple of his podcasts and articles and it’s not hard to see why Webb predicts he’ll “be a fav” on Today. Calhoun was a big fan of Obama’s massive “stimulus” spending in 2009, hoping that it would reverse years of American animosity towards big government. And while he’s far less snobbishly sneering about the Tea Party than any of the Today presenters, the new LSE director is clearly a fan of the Occupy movement.
As Webb indicates in his tweet, Calhoun is destined for one-of-us status on Today – someone to call on for a BBC-approved take on US affairs.
DB, I also just noticed that Webb gave a snide reply to your tweet to him and Comrade Mason. I wonder if the thinks that CNN or MSNBC viewers are better informed?
The LSE, the Gaddafis and the British political ‘elite’ (inc BBC, and Ms S. Chakrabarti, who is still on LSE board of governors):
“Saif Gaddafi: a monster of our own making.
With Muammar Gaddafi’s son likely to face trial in Libya, we look at the shameful roles that British academics and politicians played in giving him respectability. “
(by Michael Burleigh)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8915725/Saif-Gaddafi-a-monster-of-our-own-making.html
12 Democrats have been charged with voter fraud in a recent Georgia election. Greg Palast and Newsnight were unavailable for comment.
Evil white Republican men in disguise, obviously.
Britain has had quite a lot of problems in that area thanks mainy to “Votes for Labour”
One key paragraph sums it up:
“Before the Labour Party came to power it was impossible to register to vote once the election had been called. Labour changed this to allow registration up to 11 days after the election was called. This time-frame allows people to register and vote before any checks to prove their existence can feasibly be carried out – which is exactly what was intended.”
http://paulweston101.blogspot.com/2010/10/banana-republic-britain.html
Although voting does not really count here as we are not an independent country. We only vote for who will be able to get as much money off the state without actually doing anything. A bit like “climate scientists”
ive stumbled across a NGO climate change pressure group that makes reference to our good friend Dick Black in relation to the Durban IPCC moonbat festival
the oneworldgroup whose aims include using the media in order to support the climate movement. in depth in the link below
http://oneworldgroup.org/oneclimate-about
now the scandalous bit in an entry in the blog by Bill Gunyon
“Pity us poor journalists and bloggers striving to articulate sound climate change stories with the latest IPCC report poised over our shaky savvy on probability. I’ve resolved to reduce its complex findings on extreme weather and disaster risk as follows:
we’re dead certain that temperatures will rise but long range weather forecasting will be a problem
IPCC won’t commit on rainfall projections. Fair enough but I think the report’s low-octane interpretation of uncertainty does rather overlook the precautionary principle demanded by the 1992 UN Convention. Journalists such as Richard Black of the BBC appear willing to toe this line
willing to toe the line eh? How about the BBC’s so called climate change expert actually does his job rather than doing what he is told to do by a political pressure group?
its pointless to send Dick Black to SA because we already know what he’s going to report.
http://oneworldgroup.org/2011/11/24/live-updates-from-2359-17-nov-to-2359-19-nov/
Ugh, I wasn’t aware of that. Good catch, DB. Once again we see how the LSE informs the BBC. The good Dr. Calhoun seems to combine anthropology with PPE. Must be a Socialist.
Why the gratuitous swipe at Fox News, though? Never mind: I’ve just noticed the ubiquitous “opinons my own” dodge. Still waiting for one from the non-Left.
Looking further down his twitter page, I’m heartened to see ol’ Justin give his blessing to Thanksgiving. Although how typical of him that he focuses on the shibboleths of religion and commercialism, rather than the humility, gratefulness, and togetherness – not to mention a sense of shared history – most people associate with the holiday. Well, I suppose I should be thankful that he didn’t use it as a cudgel with which to bash the white man about treatment of the natives.
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) acts as broadcaster for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:
“Pakistan outrage after ‘Nato attack kills soldiers'”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15901363
‘The Long War’ blog has:
“US helicopters kill 28 Pakistani troops on Afghan border”
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/11/us_helicopters_kill.php#ixzz1eqDLNZFZ
There was no INBBC headline:
‘American outrage after Bin Laden is discovered living near Pakistan army HQ.’
BBC-NUJ criticises British ‘imperialism,’
– but does NOT criticise Islamic imperialism, e.g.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4555
-nor does BBC-NUJ criticise China’s imperialism:
“China builds its African empire while the ‘anti-colonialist’ Left looks the other way. ”
(by Damian Thompson)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100119769/china-builds-its-african-empire-while-the-anti-colonialist-left-looks-the-other-way/
Maybe if the Congolese and Zambians all become Tibetan Buddhists, the BBC will take notice.
When is a press conference not a press conference ?
The day after the release of the ClimateGate II emails, we saw that Richard Black tweeted that he was off to UEA for a press conference – evidently given by Prof Phil Jones and Acton, the creepy UEA Vice-Chancellor.
But who else was invited to the press conference – who else was putting questions ? Did anyone seen any reference to it the next day in any of the press ? Was there radio or TV coverage – BBC or anyone ?
How about the Guardian – was George Monbiot there or any other Guardian scribe ?
How about the other UK press ? Has anyone seen anything in pront by a known journalist ?
Below is a link to the first reference I have seen.
http://news.yahoo.com/leak-climatologist-takes-case-public-135113620.html
It quotes an Associated Press report. So – AP and Richard Black were present.
Who else ? Anyone ? Were any sceptical journalists invited ?
Or was this a fairly spurious job, the UEA conniving with Black to quickly put a lid on things ?
“BBC – we do PR for Warmists” ?
John we can summize from some of the emails “leaked” that Jones is in charge of what the BBC does or does not report. If Jones told Black to keep shtum he will tow the line just like his illustrious collegues at the impatial(ho ho) BBC.
INBBC, still propagandising for its ‘Arab Spring’ (i.e. Islamic Winter), wrongly states opinion as fact, and that Morocco is only ‘moderately’ Islam.
“Islamist PJD party wins Morocco poll”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15902703
INBBC needs to read up on this odd notion of ‘moderate’ Islam:
“Ten Things to Think When Thinking of Muslim ‘Moderates'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/11/hugh-fitzgerald-ten-things-to-think-when-thinking-of-muslim-moderates.html
Final Battle to Release the BBC’s Balen Report
One of the judges is Lord Phillips. It says so here. Doesn’t look good.
now that’s one document that needs leaking
INBBC censors on BIAFRA.
Historical background to BIAFRA is this:
‘Jihadwatch’:
“Remember Biafra!”
(by Hugh Fitzgerald)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-remember-biafra.html
Note INBBC’s censored obituary note today:
“Nigeria’s ex-Biafra leader Chukwuemeka Ojukwu dies”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15905108
excellent again george, those el beeb history re-writers love it don t they
Great Levant vid on how UN warmists, finding a wonderful way to lower their carbon footprint, by 1000s bureaucrat warmists all jetting over to Durban SA for the annual knees up? UEA guys – el beeb guys?
..UEA info though you betcha
http://youtu.be/ac-Q_5GU-40
In today’s digital world the conference could be held virtually and no one need fly.
Fuck a duck..!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music–game-shows.html
At the end of his story, David Rose of the Mail quotes a BBC spokesman “We would reject the claim that the Tyndall Centre (at the UEA) influenced BBC editorial policy”.
That is an obvious outright lie.
I bet David Rose was not invited to the “press conference” held by the UEA last week.
I hope Graham Stringer gets other MPs to look into the latest avalanche of incriminating emails.
The BBC stakes its whole reputation on impartiality – “it is in our genes”. The emails demonstrate very clearly that BBC editorial policy – across a wide range of its output, not just “news” – has been skewed as a result of a dodgy web of contacts with UEA.
Suppressio veri – Jolly Hockey Sticks !
Here is another email from the climategate2 files that our resident beeboid David Gregory has stated on this forum is of no interest. It is of course damning evidence of the corruption of science, of the scientific method. The fabrication of grassroots concern orchestrated to give the appearance of a popular mood in order to give the political fraud a respectability it does not warrant or deserve. I hope David reads this.
Email 340.txt
date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:13:20 -0500
from: “Tom Jacob” <Tom.Jacob@USA.dupont.com>
subject: REFLECTIONS ON THE HAGUE…
to: … schellnhuber@pik-potsdam.de… jonathan.pershing@iea.org, RKinley@unfccc.int, …m.hulme@uea.ac.uk…pachuri@teri.res.in…
munasinghe@worldbank.org…
In The Hague, we saw for the first time organized disruption of the conduct of negotiation and publicly staged confrontations. While organized and deeply committed environmental activism has long been an important part of the UNFCCC process through major groups suchas NRDC, EDF/ED, WWF and Greenpeace, they have operated within the structure as constructive participants in the policy-setting process, along with industry.
It gets worse:
At The Hague, this “inside” role was supplemented by hundreds of young, relatively naïve demonstrators brought in specifically to energize the environmental presence and confront the process. Even some within the ranks of the more established participants — while disavowing the takeover of the negotiating room — saw fit to publicly offer Minister Pronk and the UNFCCC Secretariate a veiled threat of “Seattle” if the process failed to deliver.
In the context of this resurgence of “environmental fundamentalism” it is also interesting to contrast the dynamics of the final give-and-take between the US and the EU in The Hague.
The selection of so called ‘expert’ guests on so-called ‘news’ reviews, is patently designed for zero light and maximum heat, always with a touch of agenda with some so-called objective broadcasters.
SKY I place more in the ratings obsession camp.
However, having wheeled on a gay Gaurdian journo straight out of central casting to proffer his pearls on strikes and teachers’ responibilities in particular, given his hardly surprising support for strikes and lack of concern for impacts on parents or kids, I have to say the SKY hostess was… brave… for asking him if he has kids.
Luckily, should there be an ‘ism outrage reaction from the affrontists, she has a defensive ability many other anchors are not able to deploy.
Expect to see this young fellow gracing many a future BBC slot.
There’s his ticking just about every right-on box going, but also having the kind of fiscal grasp, public empathy and drag down to the lowest level mindset that only a Breakfast sofa or Newsnight comfy chair could love.
Plus I suspect he may be giving up on SKY gigs, as they seem not to have worked out as well he may have hoped.
First our Gillan tasks him on his grasp of parental pressures.
Now the male host turns his attempted snipe at Sting for sensible tax management on its head, by asking him in what universe he’d tell his accountants to do all they can to hand over the government as much as possible to p*ss away on public sector pensions.
Were that such a dose of reality were served up to luvvies on all such programmes, when they presume to pronounce from their well-paid parasite professions on what actual income generators should be doing to suit their narrow grasp of financial inequity.
‘Breakfast’ stuck to the tried and tested, going for Mehdi Hasan – a zero light and maximum heat choice if ever there was one. Last Sunday it was Kevin Maguire. (Next Sunday, Simon Fanshawe?)
oh chortle…old mehdi “kaffirs/animals” hasan, wonderful example of
community cohesion…when will they discuss that issue i wonder..
maybe fanshawe and he can discuss, his ideology he loves vehemently preaching for s, standing on homsexuality…& just “feel the love” 😀
presume you guys have seen this email from the BBC’s Alex Kirby to Prof Phil Jones, evidencing the BBC’s bias to AGW sceptics ?
date: Wed Dec 8 08:25:30 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.xx.xx>
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby” <alex.kirby@bbc.xxx.xx>
At 17:27 07/12/2004, you wrote:
Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can
well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we
are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any
coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and
being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an
expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it
clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
—–Original Message—–
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/bbcs-kirby-admission-to-phil-jones-on-impartiality/
Speaking of expert guests, I know many don’t, but given the BBC fraternity’s reliance on twitter it is worth checking out #marr or #marrshow tags for today’s ‘show’.
So far the luvvies, pols and host are not exactly getting applauded for their grasp of the public mood, or how much the public grasps who has been responsibel for what, and what really matters.
One is sure the BBC does believe it speaks for folk, but on this basis, they seem to be rather on a different planet.
If one uniquely funded by all on this one.
One such tweet was “Bizarrely unbalanced line-up for #MarrShow paper review: Labour stooge Ian Blair, Lib Dem Mary Ann Sieghart & Max Mosley!”
That about sums it up – except to add “Labour supporter” before “Max Mosley”. (Is he still a donor?)
Mosley was on ‘Marr’ to give the tabloids a good thrashing over the Leveson Inquiry. Paddy’s ‘Broadcasting House’ had another Leveson celeb, Anne Diamond, to do much the same job. Funnily enough, both celebs on both shows thought the Leveson Inquiry was spot on to be giving celebs the lion’s share of attention so far! The BBC seems to be taking a similar line.
INBBC: supporting Islamic Republic of Pakistan against NATO.
INBBC takes sides politically instinctively against NATO, and for Islamic Pakistan, it seems.
While even ‘The Guardian’ has this:
“Nato air attack on Pakistani troops was self-defence, says senior western official”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/26/nato-air-attack-pakistan-soldiers
But INBBC continues with this ‘report’ cobbled together by three of INBBC’s finest whom we finance: Guerin, Somerville and the ever dependable reporter for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, but paid for by us: M. (‘Mohammad’?) Illyas Khan in Islamabad.
“Pakistan orders Nato and US review after deadly border strike”
Note how INBBC ‘reports’ only the Pakistan propaganda on Bin Laden:
Under ‘side-bar’, “US-Pakistan downturn” we have this anti-NATO propaganda:
“2 May: US announces Bin Laden’s death and says Pakistan not warned of raid”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15905777