The BBC is determined to present the outcome of the Climate Change debacle in Durban as some sort of triumph and this was all too evident with this interview with Lord Stern this morning. What struck me was the way in which he was allowed to waffle without interruption; the way in which he was allowed to present unsubstantiated claims as incontrovertible facts; the way in which any dissenting voices on Durban were ruthlessly expunged from the debate. Also note the way in which the debate was framed…
“Lord Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics analyses whether the deal goes far enough.”
Not a hint of bias there, right?
Stern is a prostitute, a high political class hooker that puts out for high office and high returns. Showered with gifts and honours by his wealthy list of clients which includes the Treasury, the LSE, for his mastery of the oral, art of telling lies without a trace of shame. Sadly he is but one of a list of many intellect-for-sale “rent boys” employed by officials of this government – Sir John Houghton, Sir Paul Nurse and other climate tarts
Hear hear!
The regime has a stable full of amoral lickspittle stooges on call who gladly prostitute themselves for the baubles and trinkets a grateful regime will provide.
Rent boys is a perfect description of them, and their little scams called ‘rent an inquiry’.
I expect that his ilk have offices and car parking places at the BBC TV centre. I heard Jenny Jones, the Greens Mayor of London candidate, on LBC yesterday, spouting all the discredited propaganda from Durban. I expect that she will take up permanent residence at Wood Lane, in the near future!
Well, what do you expect – they’re on a roll, now, and evidently don’t give a toss. So all that adverse publicity recently will be swept aside, because they will believe that everything they idolise about this scam has been justified and ratified in the African place, and Black and company will return home as as heroes of the day (if not the age). You won’t hear the last of it for some considerable time, methinks. They are impervious to truth, and incapable of shame. They are the BBC.
Possibly – just possibly, the big guns are starting to move their sights.
Culture committee anyone?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072645/MPs-say-BBC-reveal-details-journalists-commercial-deals.html
Post Gaddafi, riots ‘report’ (especially the BBC’s complicity in that), one has to say mentioning the LSE as a reccomendation for anything, or anyone, is.. brave. Deluded, but, brave.
Is the LSE the leading light of Britain or something? They get an awful lot of play on the BBC, seems like far more than other institutions. Maybe Craig has some figures to set me straight.
“BBC admits polar bear footage faked”
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1100553–bbc-admits-polar-bear-footage-faked
BBC now claims it is “normal practice” to fake wildlife footage (in the interest of the health and safety of cameramen). Just like it is normal to fake polar bears on floating ice to bettter communicate the awful danger we are all in, to fake pollution by showing photos of steam emissions from water-cooling towers, to fake everything, because the BBC is a fake news reporting organisation.
Notice that in the conversation no mention is made of any proposed new technologies with which to the address the not-coming-any-time-soon problem of global warming.
The point being made by the totally discredited, Gaddafi-supporting LSE or those geniuses at UEA/BBC is to get vast amounts of money sloshing around, so that assorted non-productive members of society can stand mid-stream hoping to catch a modest portion.
If this is not outright deception and corruption on a grand scale, then I don’t know what is.
I am all for global warming, though it’s unlikely to happen soon. The urge to freeze the Earth like a giant snowball seems barking mad. It’s too bloody cold on this planet, not too warm. And all signs point to DECREASING temperatures and ther’s bugger we can do about it, alas.
WARMER IS BETTER! FIGHT THE ICE!
“Climate scientists: not evil, maybe a bit stupid, definitely in a world all of their own ”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100123625/climate-scientists-not-evil-maybe-a-bit-stupid-definitely-in-a-world-all-of-their-own/
By James Delingpole
“The Copenhagen summit is the world’s last chance to save the planet from “catastrophic” global warming, according to a major study led by Lord Stern of Brentford, the country’s leading authority on climate change.” [2009]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6701307/Copenhagen-summit-is-last-chance-to-save-the-planet-Lord-Stern.html
So there we have it – we have past the tipping point so what is the point of Durban. Or was he lying when he said Copenhagen was the last chance?
This would be the first question I would ask this non-scientist. The BBc won’t.
Here are some other “last chances to save the planet”.
http://www.andysrant.com/2011/12/last-chances-and-global-warming.html
Steve Doughty in the Daily Mail analyses the real meaning of some of the agreements reached, as well as shows certain hidden agendas of those the BBC likes to present as impartial.It is a mistake to take this £64bn climate change deal at face value
You mean, Steve Doughty, a right wing tabloid reporter, who is paid to report things in a certain way, to support certain political, economic, and business groups – tells us the real meaning.
I just don’t get your point. You think tabloid newspapers are impartial!?
If the BBC is saying something different to the Daily Mail, then it’s almost certainly the truth
If the BBC is saying something different to the Daily Mail, then it’s almost certainly full of Left-wing bias.
There, fixed that for you. Do you notice that if something is the opposite of the Right, it must be of the Left? Doesn’t this mean the BBC is biased to the Left, just as we claim? If not, why not?
I mean Steve Doughty (the author’s name) in the Daily Mail (the name of the newspaper) – hope you got it.
I did notice that you didn’t refute anything in the article that he raised with some alternative facts or points. But I’m sure most here do understand that you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to defend your brainwashed mindset.
How dare the BBC report something that does not follow a right wing, tabloid, agenda!
Climate change is scientific consensus. Sort of like black holes, the big bang, dark matter and gravity…………
Why on earth is a serious news organisation, or any serious person going to report crank science (scepticism)……!?
The only reason right wingers get upset at the BBC, is because they generally tell people who the real world is.
Your choice of analogous theories shows that you don’t understand what you’re saying. The consensus is that the big bang happened, dark matter probably exists, and gravity exists. Except nobody knows what causes any of them. There is no consensus on the cause of the big bang, dark matter, or what causes gravity. There are theories, but no real consensus.
The term “Climate Change” has been substituted for Anthropogenic Global Warming, because the science about man causing all of it is known to be highly suspect. It’s only a consensus amont the people who invented it, rigged their data to push it, and have vested financial and personal interests in maintaining it.
Of course the climate changes. It goes up and down, and has done since the beginning of the world. Nobody thinks it doesn’t. So the activists needed to change the terms in order to keep it going.
The people behind this – including media figures like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin – know this, hence the Orwellian switch to fool the public. You seem to have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
Black Holes
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12089
Dark Matter
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3172
Big Bang
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/03/the_big_bang_in_controversy.html
Whatever this mathwark person is – he is no scientist and therefore clearly quailfied to tell us who is right and wrong about the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory.
The only reason right wingers get upset at the BBC, is because they generally tell people who the real world is.
You really don’t get it – we get upset because the BBC doesn’t provide balance and alternative viewpoints so people can form their own opinions – the way it’s supposed to according to its mandate. Therefore it is an unethical, immoral organisation, that since it can perform this way – can in no way know what ‘right thinking’ is – and I don’t mean ‘right’ as a mindset.
Only idiots need a propaganda outlet to tell them what to think – and think that is a good thing.
Hope you get my point, although it might be obscure for you.
It starts – ‘only idiots…’
Mathrawk – who told you “climate change is scientific consensus”?
“We must apply due impartiality to all our subject matter. However, there are particular requirements for ‘controversial subjects’, whenever they occur in any output, including drama, entertainment and sport.
A ‘controversial subject’ may be a matter of public policy or political or industrial controversy. It may also be a controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters entirely.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-impartiality-controversial-subjects/
This is what we pay for, both sides or more not just one. So if it gives us only the “left wing” view of a news item it is not fullfilling its guidelines.