The BBC’s most powerful weapon is its ability to rewrite history….to maintain its own narrative over an extended, indeed infinite, time….it owns the ‘right’ and numerous platforms to broadcast what it pleases to back up its own beliefs, and that is what it does.
A historical fact, such as the BBC were found guilty of lying about the Iraq War Dossier has now been morphed into ‘the BBC was right all along’ and that is the line they spin now regardless of truth.
This ability to spin and erase facts from the history books is now being turned to good use in the BBC’s fight against climate change sceptics.
On Wednesday they are broadcasting ‘Climategate Revisited’ on R4 at 21:00.
This is some of the blurb that goes with it:
‘Climategate certainly inflamed the debate over climate change, in the UK, the US and elsewhere.
In 2012 the Norfolk Police announced they were abandoning their investigation into who hacked into the university’s computer and then distributed what they found.
But what have been the longer-term consequences of this incident, for public opinion, media reporting and international policy-making on climate change? Chris Vallance investigates, asking if this was a political crime, and, if so, how effective has it been?’
Interesting the use of the phrase ‘political crime’ for hacking some emails……that is the BBC attempting to ‘create’ a new truth and working from that as a basis for all other pronouncements….just as when Labour make a claim the BBC uses that as the ‘given truth’ and if a government minister fails to disprove it whilst under the usual aggressive and antagonistic interview then that Labour claim becomes the ‘Truth’.
You can be one hundred percent certain that this programme has been set up to ‘prove’ rather than investigate that this was, as they call it, a ‘political crime’ with appalling consequences for the World and polar bears.
Will there be a similar question about the climate scientists who were proved to be manipulating data and hiding inconvenient facts to bolster their own research and keep the grants flowing? Are they really political criminals with enormous financial, social and political consequences for the world resulting from their deceptions?
No, of course not.…the science is settled and the CRU have nothing to be ashamed of in their behaviour…and therefore ‘hacking’ the emails was immoral and criminal.….unlike say ‘Wikileaks’ or any other ‘leak’ that embarrasses the Tories.
Undoubtedly the BBC will inform us that there was nothing partisan or corrupt about the ‘inquiries’ into the CRU by various bodies that backed the CRU….despite large amounts of evidence to the contrary and that the inquiries were in fact pretty much a travesty of justice packed as they were with pro AGW advocates and refusing to look at evidence provided by sceptics.
Here are two conclusions you can lay odds on…first that this was an ‘agenda’ driven crime by people with vested interests in discrediting climate change theory, and second that the consequences for the world are extremely harmful……as a result of the public being conned by right wing sceptics the planet will keep being poisoned by CO2, governments will not take the necessary action, unemployment will fester as green jobs are not created and of course people in the third world will be the victims of the developed world’s selfishness as they suffer from rising seas and ever more extreme weather events …caused by global warming.…caused by you driving your car and going to work to produce things, getting paid and spending that money on other products…such as food and clothing and a roof over your head…and generally, criminally, irresponsibly, improving your living standards and enjoying yourself.
You’re such a bad person….either innately a nasty rightwinger, or someone gulled by the right wing press and those with that ‘agenda’ into believing their rubbish.
Don’t worry. The BBC is here to re-educate you. However they won’t be around to pay your ever rising, green taxed, fuel bills, or the egregious car taxes, or unemployment pay you now receive as your employer is forced out of business by green tax and legislation.
Still, there’s always daytime TV to keep you connected to the world.
I know I have just remarked on another posting – but on Today this morning Just Webb pushed Dr Liz Bentley into saying that Sandy was a result of Climate Change – no doubt to be used in news reports for the rest of the day.
‘ Sandy was a result of Climate Change ‘
I rather suspect it was.
It changed in all sorts of places, making a whirly thing that sent storm waters and winds, this time, to a place where, if I recall my SKY quote of the day this morning, it has not gone before in 9 years. Which, in MSM terms, makes it unprecedented. Doubtless along with the 3 foot tsunami in Hawaii at the weekend.
(OK, a surge is different to a wave, but really).
To a place where humans couldn’t live until they artificially created a lot of it.
‘New York City is an island built on garbage. Dutch settlers constructed much of the southern tip of Manhattan by extending the shoreline with landfill.’
Sandy is indeed an unusual storm, it required a very rare set of natural phenomena to occur at the same time to create it. Human’s additional emissions of CO2 (in addition to natural emissions) cannot be scientifically proven to be a contributing factor at all, let alone the main contributory factor.
But the creepy BBC will never ever let a scientific truth get in the way of their pseudo scientific propaganda and political advocacy dressed up as scientific concern.
well of course it is a “super” sandy hurricane cyclone storm isn t it, hang on later for the next
super dooper whooper cyclone hurricane storm.
but erm lets not mention the labor day storm 1935, or atlantic gulf 1919, or san felipe 1928, etc etc etc
it global warming i tell you … climate change the end is nigh … don t panic capn mainwaring
On the 6 o’clock news yesterday Harrabin was displaying his knowledge against a backdrop of a satellite image of Sandy. He helpfully showed the wind direction with the wrong direction of rotation. Wind rotates anti-clockwise round the centre not clockwise. So much for the Beeb’s expertise if he’s the best they’ve got?
Even though the BBC controls the airwaves and can broadcast it’s version of “the truth” virtually unchallenged, many are still not convinced. The BBC knows that it’s power trumps our disbelief. Even though we don’t believe it, we are bullied into accepting politics dressed up as science.
not only the bbc … 😀
There are some factual elements to this that would seem more than relevant to any news medium covering this topic, but one suspects the Basically Blah Curious national treasure would appear to be following a slightly non-independent, non-science, top-down mandate on rigging coverage.
It’s the BBC’s version of an irregular verb:
He’s a hacker
Meanwhile, it’s always good to see the folks who endlessly jibber-jabber about Umanrites wheel out phrases like ‘political crime’.
See? Nothing whatsoever sinister about the ecomentalist agenda.
Great post, Alan. I recently watched a PBS programme (via the web) purporting to be ‘an investigation’ into climate sceptics in the US. Of course, within the first ten minutes it became blatantly apparent this was no unbiased journalistic venture: just another pro-CAGW hatchet job on anyone daring to question ‘The Consensus’.
Like you, I already expect the BBC to churn out nothing less than doctrinaire propaganda whenever it pretends to ‘investigate’ issues around so-called ‘man-made’ climate change. You’d imagine that perhaps the BBC might have guessed by now that nobody who actually takes the time to discover the facts for themselves on the issue is still buying their tired, discredited pro-CAGW manifesto; but alas, being taxpayer funded, the BBC don’t actually have to give a damn what anyone thinks about their lack of journalistic integrity: and so, of course, they don’t give a damn – they merely continue repeating the same unproven hypothesis as some kind of fact; as if just saying it can really make it happen.
I fully expect the BBC to continue subtly whipping up the current US ‘superstorm’ into a frenzy of CAGW-related hysteria: the subtext is right there, behind every BBC news report; one can almost hear it behind ‘smiling’ George Alagiah’s sly, reptilian smile to camera on ‘the Six’ every night. This is how the BBC can make something without any scientific evidence to back it up a ‘fact’. Just keep saying it. And when you keep your critics at bay (as the BBC do) via a deliberate editorial policy of censorship of any view (on CAGW) that does not chime with the ‘accepted policy’, it’s pretty easy to keep the ‘approved’ message pure; unsullied by critics and real-world facts that might contaminate the propaganda.
The question you’ve got to ask is why the BBC are so biased towards CAGW even when there is such strong mounting evidence against it?
I’ll say it till I’m blue in the face: think social justice, think sustainable development , think, in fact, UN Agenda 21. I won’t post any links – just Google it – the world under a totalitarian eco-socialist UN government is your oyster……
Of course it`s off topic-but Savilegate provides the parallels.
Basically the BBC thinks that by having some Welsh bloke on its board in the 80s, that found Savile “creepy”; then that exonerates all Beeboids past and present from any accusation that they groomed Britains kids for Savile.
No case to answer, m`Lud!
Climate fiddling just another blanket acquital-the BBC always somehow manage to get it right!
Climategate, Savilegate-all the same shit to keep the BBC stuffed with condoms, porn and excuses to go to Cancun/Bangkok.
The BBC buildings surely would be ideal sites for nuclear power plants….if we ask Hitachi nicely eh?
To be honest, I think the fact that Savile was kept away from Children In Need is far more damning of the BBC than exonerating them. It surely says that the stories that were being told were common currency and that only one person in that mix took some action.
The idea that he thought him ‘Creepy’ seems a little off the cuff and doesn’t tell the whole story either.
The BBC are stuffed to the gills with ‘Savilegate’
Let me tweak that for you.
‘The BBC are stuffed’
Some acted, everyone talked about it, but no one knew.
Get a QC who’s not on the payroll and that would last 10 seconds.
The irony is, that if a person was blown off any job-related function in such a way (arbitrary senior whim) for such a reason (being ‘creepy’), in any other area, the BBC would be screaming blue murder.
But then, it was a different time.
Maybe… even more ‘unique’?
Ideal sites for nuclear bombs!
A scientist not in the loop took a look at hurricane data, which resulted in more trouble for the IPCC.
Coincidentally, shortly afterwards the World Meteorological Organization published a review paper which stated among other things
Landfalling tropical storm and hurricane activity in the US shows no long-term increase
In terms of global tropical cyclone frequency, it was concluded that there was no significant change in global tropical storm or hurricane numbers from 1970 to 2004, nor any significant change in hurricane numbers for any individual basin over that period, except for the Atlantic (discussed above). Landfall in various regions of East Asia during the past 60 years, and those in the Philippines during the past century, also do not show significant trends.
Thus, considering available observational studies, and after accounting for potential errors arising from past changes in observing capabilities, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone frequency have exceeded the variability expected through natural causes.
a detectable change in tropical-cyclone-related rainfall has not been established by existing studies.
There is no conclusive evidence that any observed changes in tropical cyclone genesis, tracks, duration and surge flooding exceed the variability expected from natural causes.
That’s what they conclude from observational data, but when they move into computer modelling they predict
globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100
A whole 11% maximum increase in storm strength by 2100 even if the models are correct. Scary stuff. But their models also predict
Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%
Of course none of this will stop the rampant dishonesty coming from the BBC.
It’s a sign of the intolerance and dare I say fascism that bubbles under much of the so-called “liberal” discourse on this subject that the sinister phrase “political crime” is bandied about so readily. It’s the sort of phrase that until recently would have seemed ridiculous expect in a totalitarian regime.
The whole climate gate scandal raised important questions about the veracity of the science and the honesty of the scientists behind much current research. Perhaps just as worrying however was how the full power of the state was targeted at those suspected of involvement in obtaining the e-mails, ie..
The joint Norfolk and Suffolk Major Investigation Team,
The Met’s Counter Terrorism Command,
The National Domestic Extremism Team
Police Central e-crime Unit, plus consultants in online security and investigation.
It’s the modern day equivalent of the religious witch hunts of the dark-ages.
They are so stupid they think we can’t work out why they would call it a ‘political crime’? Who politicised it in the first place if it wasn’t the IPCC with its ‘Summary for Policy Makers’, the influential section of its report that bears little if no resemblance to honest science?
There’s no proof it was a hack let alone a crime. The police gave up trying to prove either. Unfortunately I wouldn’t trust the police completely on this one. Considering the political and financial influence behind the warmist fraud, the pressure that must have been brought to bear on the police to keep things under wraps must have been irresistible.
It’s quite possible the police actually found that it was an unidentified insider who (non-criminally) leaked the mails and stopped the investigation at that point. Just for public consumption you understand they consequently declared themselves mystified. In that way the warmists – and the BBC – can keep alleging “crimes” were committed and thus deflect the discussion from the corruption of science revealed by the leaked info. This “revisiting” of Climategate by the BBC is simply a ruse to concentrate on the trivial in order to obfuscate the revelation of the genuinely important.
Correct, Umbongo. The BBC called it a crime and used the term “hacked” almost immediately, without investigation or waiting for facts to come out. They took the word of their contacts at the CRU.
Yet when somebody really did hack Sarah Palin’s personal email (not the official stuff that was officially released, over which they also salivated), it was “leaked” until a less biased news organization reported that they were accessed illegally.
‘I wouldn’t trust the police completely on this one’
Having read the Register’s account of the QC Judge’s behaviour in the BBC vs. those holding it to account farce, with a long and ignoble series already well logged by that darn internet (at least), the entire politic-media-judicial-enforcement seems as bent as the 3-Euro note whose tune they dance to.
“Under Fire BBC Boss Boaden Faces Court.
Beeb Refusing to Respond to Climate Change FOI.”
As predicted, and as noted by Deborah above, the global warming connection to Hurricane Sandy is now predictably being made by the BBC. But here’s the thing: the natural conflagration that has caused the storm – in effect two storms colliding, the fuelling effect of an ice cold airstream from the Arctic and the high Autumn tides – has been explained not only in the mainstream press but also on the BBC’s own news website a few days ago.
So what conclusion do we draw from this? A very important one, I think, and it’s this: the BBC news website – not exactly having a huge readership – is where you find the so-called ‘balance’ that the likes of Dez and Nicked constantly refer us to. BBC TV and Radio (Today audience 6.5 million) is where the bias is rampant.
Simple but effective, eh?
Why hasn’t anyone blamed Islam for this yet?
All you Daily Mail reading little englanders are slipping.
…well – if you take into account the butterfly effect, a burka fluttering in the wind in Helmand…
Bloody muslims with their Anti-American garments.
Getting both Daily Mail readers and Little Englanders into a non-sequitur generic ‘you lot’ post being, presumably, you getting your game face on?
You win, Nicked. Awesome. All our arguments totally destroyed
Shall we move onto Tossergate now?
“Canada: Muslim website calls Hurricane Sandy ‘a divine slap on the face of U.S. arrogance’.”
“PRO-ASSAD FACEBOOK PAGE CLAIMS ‘HEROIC’ IRANIAN REGIME ORCHESTRATED HURRICANE SANDY.”
“Jon Snow: did America bring this on itself?”
By Brendan O’Neill .
Screw the science, this is all about politics and the green religion.
Why hasn’t an ignorant, leftie liberal happy-clappy touchy-feely, lily-livered moronic twat mentioned Little Englanders and Muslims yet? …Oh just seen Nicked Emus (6:35 pm)
BBC-NUJ-Labour: Gramsci, not Orwell.
Isn’t this comment relevant here?:-
“In practice, Orwell’s path is a hard one to follow, and yet he is the first really modern intellectual, the first to achieve a transcendence of the classic Gramscian categories. What Orwell is saying is that you have to be committed and you have to tell the truth. And telling the truth is not just telling lies about your enemies: it is talking straight to your friends. It means the avoidance of bad faith … The Gramscian intellectual, facing a moral dilemma over truth-telling within a political organisation, will feel that the cause and the organisation must always come first. But the Orwellian will feel that the truth must always come first.”
– R.W.Johnson ‘Heroes and Villains: Selected Essays’
Gramsci and his prison notebooks have any of you read them?
Reading is one thing; understanding quite another.
I should clarify that this was shared with me by a wise old source as I spent a dangerous and lonely assignment on the waterfronts of the River Wye at the Hope and Anchor, over a shared Scampi & chips and two halves of Marston’s Empire. A fine ale, to be sure.
No, I haven`t Mr Emus.
Is it in these where he advocates the “long march through the institutions?”
Have you read the prison letters of Paul to the Ephesians then?…or Bonhoeffers prison letters?
Just pointless aimless questions to get up your nose, my friend-don`t care if you have or you haven`t….bit like yourself eh?
I`m assuming that you yourself have read them in the original Italian in the case of Gramsci-the “long march through the institutions” bit may not translate very well.
We are fed subliminal Gramscian ideology in BBC-NUJ’s broadcasting output, and even pro-BBC troll on ‘Biased-BBC’ website is pushing Gramsci (and his ‘class’ analysis of capitalism, and the role of the ‘intellectual’ in bringing about the ‘socialist revolution’).
This is the stuff of political organisations, not of a publicly funded broadcaster.
BBC-NUJ is digging its own grave with its political bias.
Antonio Gramsci if he was alive would loath with a passion the BBC common purpose champange socialists.
Its very hot where he is right now.
FOI request exposes BBC’s Political bias over past ten years:
One for the Biased-BBC website’s trophy cabinet. It’s getting crowded.