via Bishop Hill

The GWPF has done a report examining the teaching of climate in schools…..

The report also describes how activist teachers try to make children become the footsoldiers of the green movement, encouraging them to harass their schoolmates and pester their parents to bring about “behaviour change”.

The use of fear of climate change to alter children’s behaviour is also highlighted.

The report quotes one child as saying:

“I worry about [global warming] because I don’t want to die.”

Michael Gove has responded….Perhaps the sentiments expressed here by Gove concerning teaching about the climate in schools might also apply to the BBC’s campaigning coverage of climate:

“The Secretary of State read this report with concern. Ministers are clear that the new national curriculum must equip young people with the core knowledge they need to understand the weather, climate, the earth’s atmosphere, physical geography and the interaction between nature and the environment. 

“That means in both science and geography, pupils must learn the facts and processes which underpin public discussion of climate change. They must be equipped with the scientific knowledge to make their own judgments about political responses. They must not be directed towards a particular campaigning agenda.

“Schools should not teach that a particular political or ideological point of view is right – indeed it is against the law for them to do so. Great care should be exercised to make sure information provided to students is scientifically rigorous. It is important that any material used in the classroom is rooted in science, not driven by the aims of a campaign.”

The ‘useful idiots’ at the BBC might like to take note….even as they ignore what Gove has said and refuse to broadcast it (?)…just as the BBC’s ‘Science journalists’ have with comments by James Lovelock (leaving it to their political journalist colleague, Paxman, to interview him):

“It sounds good to try to save the planet, but in reality we are not thinking of saving Gaia, we are thinking of saving Earth for us, or for our nation.

“The idea of ‘saving the planet’ is a foolish extravagance of romantic Northern ideologues and probably much beyond our ability.

No….nothing on the BBC yet……odd…as they’re usually biting at the bit to report Gove’s words and the reactions to them….and of course no sign of any report about the GWPF’s research.

Very odd as Harrabin is usually so quick to jump on anyone who doesn’t toe the party line on the consensus…here implying Paterson is not one of ‘us’….& why does Harrabin think he needs a ‘science briefing’?:

Those wicked words of Owen Paterson (on Question Time):

“Well I’m sitting like a rose between two thorns here and I have to take practical decisions – erm – the climate’s always been changing – er – Peter mentioned the Arctic and I think in the Holocene the Arctic melted completely and you can see there were beaches there – when Greenland was occupied, you know, people growing crops – we then had a little ice age, we had a middle age warming – the climate’s been going up and down – but the real question which I think everyone’s trying to address is – is this influenced by manmade activity in recent years and James is actually correct – the climate has not changed – the temperature has not changed in the last seventeen years and what I think we’ve got to be careful of is that there is almost certainly – bound to be – some influence by manmade activity but I think we’ve just got to be rational (audience laughter)  – rational people – and make sure the measures that we take to counter it don’t actually cause more damage – and I think we’re about to get -“

No. we can’t have someone who thinks for himself…..

Oh no…not everyone in the Media is onboard……must be a sceptical conspiracy….

Hates Booker….

Harrabin wants you to die to prove AGW?

So ‘good news’ for Harrabin?

Good job we’ve got Harrabin to look after the planet for us:

Yes…‘pity about the climate’….that’s of course assuming the ‘science’ is correct….an assumption Harrabin embraces with deep joy…..so lucky to have the BBC as a platform from which he has…‘spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change’.

As opposed to merely reporting climate change…..

Ian Hislop has a new BBC programme (tonight BBC2 21:00)….Ian Hislop’s Olden Days….

Ian Hislop’s Olden Days, The Power of the Past in Britain, explores a cultural history of Britain’s idealised past and our fondness for yesterday.

You can see why the BBC likes that…..destroying the ‘myths’ that surround the Nation…you’re not really who you think…..you’re not as good as you think…your national identity is a fraud conjured up by devious politicians and right wing orators.

Cue Evan Davis on Today chatting to Hislop……apparently Michael Gove should listen to the programme…he might learn something about the foolishness of those who hark back to some golden age in the old days and try to exploit the myths we construct of our past today.

Yes …never look back…there’s nothing good there:

Maria Miller has resigned.

The various factions are lining up to exploit it, or downplay it, for their own political ends.  The BBC is not above such things.

Humphrys was having  a bash at Gove this morning laying out the case against Cameron…..he’s out of touch and his judgment is flawed…it’s ok to be compassionate and to defend your people but you have to take hard decisions in the best interest of the country.

Nick Robinson told us that what the politicians got wrong was that they concentrated on the wrong thing.  They should have ignored the conclusions of the Parliamentary committee that cleared Miller and instead taken account of the enormous public anger and sacked her.

So populist mob rule then?  The BBC usually decries anyone taking account of the Great Unwashed.   And is there ‘enormous public anger’ or is this really something whipped up by the newspapers, as Robinson admits, because of Leveson?

Humphrys said about politicians in regard to this case…‘You sit in judgement on each other and you’re going to protect each other…that’s patently wrong.’

You can judge for yourself what the Parliamentary Committee said:

Mrs Miller and her husband bought their house in London in January 1996. Her parents and two brothers came to live with them at that time as part of a single family unit. By 2005 the family unit comprised Mr and Mrs Miller, their three children and Mrs Miller’s parents.When Mrs Miller was selected as the candidate for Basingstoke in 2003, she rented a property in that area. When she was elected in 2005 she declared her Basingstoke home as her main home and her home in London as her second home against which she claimed Additional Costs Allowances (ACA) for the running costs.

Mrs Miller’s claims were significantly below the total costs of either home, which supports the judgment that parliamentary allowances were not used to cover her parents’ living costs.

We accept Mrs Miller’s contention that her overclaim in 2008–09 was inadvertent and caused by the rapid reduction in interest rates.
We have already recommended that Mrs Miller repay the £5,800 which she has identified as an overclaim. She should also apologise by personal statement on the floor of the House for her attitude to the Commissioner’s inquiries.

The Telegraph selectively reported this exchange as ‘threatening them with Leveson’.….but black out the relevant bits that put that ‘threat’ in context…that Miller’s father had just come out of hospital after an operation when he was dorrstepped by tyhe Telegraph reporter…….
JH: I should just flag up as well, while you’re on it that when she doorstepped him, she got Maria’s father, who’s just had a [removed] and come out of [removed]. And Maria has obviously been having quite a lot of editors’ meetings around Leveson at the moment. So I am just going to flag up that connection for you to think about.
HW: I’m not meant to knock on people’s doors?
JH: Knock on the doors of people when they’ve just come out of [removed] and had [removed]. Yeah. I would suggest that was probably a good thing.

They again miss out the relevant bits in their fuller report:
How Culture Secretary tried to bully MP watchdog

In a phone call, Miss Hindley then spoke to a Telegraph reporter and said: “Maria has obviously been having quite a lot of editors’ meetings around Leveson at the moment. So I am just going to flag up that connection for you to think about.” She added that the reporter should have “spoken to people a little higher up your organisation”.
The Telegraph has redacted personal details about Mrs Miller’s father from the transcript of the conversation with Miss Hindley.

Puts the BBC in  a difficult position..do they support the Telegraph against a Tory….or condemn the Telegraph for doorstepping a sick man?….imagine if it had been the Daily Mail ‘hounding’ an elderly man who had just come out of hopsital.  Wasn’t that the reasoning behind ‘Leveson’  as always explained to us by BBC presenters and guests….to protect us from the disgraceful Tabloids harassing vulnerable private citizens?

Perhaps the BBC did have such thoughts (08:14)…Evan Davis sounding like he had sympathies with Miller….‘You can see it from both sides’

He goes on to look at the ‘Press and politicians’…..suggesting MPs have come around to Miller’s side…they don’t like the Press’s approach.

Maybe not.

Labour, the Leveson cheerleader for press regulation, hypocritically claims:

Ms Eagle, the shadow Commons leader, said: “The government seems to want to threaten the press with statutory underpinning to control the news agenda.”

But anyway…today’s conclusions by the BBC……politicians are….

 ‘out of touch…ignores the public anger…sits on judgement of themselves…fails to take hard and necessary decisons out of a mistaken compassion.’

That’s the BBC isn’t it?  That’s just as  ‘patently wrong’.

The BBC compassionately refuses to publish the truth about immigration or Islam or Europe because to do so, it feels, would be damaging to the overall cohesion of the country…to raise difficult questions would undermine the myth the BBC has woven about the benefits such things bring us….and worst of all would lead to a swing to the right of voters.

The BBC censors and shapes the news to downplay the downsides of certain policies and emphasises, or exaggerates, or invents, the benefits.

Isn’t it time the BBC’s self-regulation was put an end to and the BBC Trust consigned to the dustbin?

I wonder if the BBC notes the hypocrisy of Labour’s position?……..not so far…….

Labour is grandstanding and demanding ‘reform of the system’…MPs shouldn’t regulate each other…….Bit late I might suggest:

Peter Oborne in the Mail in 2009 claims:

Despite that cover-up by establishment stooges, Ms Smith is guilty of thievery (and I dare her to sue me)

Yet how on earth does she get away with her thievery?

The first answer is the collusion of the Parliamentary authorities. Sadly, the Commons Department of Finance and Administration, to which Ms Smith submitted her claim, is notorious for allowing MPs to fiddle their expenses.

It is worth remembering that this watchdog never once queried the submissions from Tory MPs Derek Conway and Michael Trend, who stole tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money through blatantly corrupt claims. It was thanks only to whistleblowers that both men were eventually exposed.

The second reason for Ms Smith’s survival is the wholehearted complicity of the Conservative Party and the LibDems. Not a single MP raised Ms Smith’s cheating when she answered Home Office Questions.

So…… just a reminder….because no one at the BBC, or in the Labour Party, mentions this almost exact parrallel for some reason……Jacqui Smith was cleared and merely ordered to apologise after pocketing £116,000…she was never sacked….taking 6 months to ‘step down’ in a reshuffle…….

Jacqui Smith expenses claims total £157,631
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith claimed £22,948 in 2007/08 in taxpayer-funded allowances for her second home, official figures have shown.

Gordon Brown: ‘Let Jacqui Smith get on with her job as Home Secretary’
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has appealed for Jacqui Smith to be allowed to get on with her work as Home Secretary, after she apologised for claiming the cost of pornographic movies on her parliamentary expenses.

If you are onboard with the climate consensus you can say what you like to alarm the public:

The costs of inaction on climate change will be “catastrophic”, according to US Secretary of State John Kerry.

Mr Kerry was responding to a major report by the UN which described the impacts of global warming as “severe, pervasive and irreversible”.

He said dramatic and swift action was required to tackle the threats posed by a rapidly changing climate.

Our health, homes, food and safety are all likely to be threatened by rising temperatures, the report says.

or this by ‘economist’ Nicholas Stern:

No reaction from the IPCC  to counter the alarmist claims there.

However should you not adhere to the new religious orthodoxy and dare to voice concerns about such alarmism the IPCC will instantly spring into action to correct your mis-aprehensions…via Bishop Hill:

“No sexing up here” says IPCC

The IPCC has issued a statement disputing some of the claims about the sexing up of the Summary for Policymakers made in the Mail on Sunday yesterday. This is the guts of it:

The Mail on Sunday also quotes some passages from the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers on migration and refugees, wars and conflicts, famine, and extreme weather, which it claims are “sexed up” from statements in the underlying report. In doing so it misleads the reader by distorting the carefully balanced language of the document.

For instance, the Mail on Sunday quotes the Summary as saying climate change will ‘increase risks of violent conflicts’. In fact the Summary says that climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying factors such as poverty and economic shocks. The Mail on Sunday says the Summary warns of negative impacts on crop yields, with warming responsible for lower yields of wheat, maize, soya and rice. In fact the Summary says that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts, with wheat and maize yields negatively affected in many regions and effects on rice and soybean yields smaller in major production regions.

The references to the underlying report cited by the Mail on Sunday in contrast to the Summary for Policymakers also give a completely misleading and distorted impression of the report through selective quotation. For instance the reference to “environmental migrants” is a sentence describing just one paper assessed in a chapter that cites over 500 papers – one of five chapters on which the statement in the Summary for Policymakers is based. A quoted sentence on the lack of a strong connection between warming and armed conflict is again taken from the description of just one paper in a chapter that assesses over 600 papers. A simple keyword search shows many references to publications and statements in the report showing the opposite conclusion, and supporting the statement in the Summary that “Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts in the form of civil war and inter-group violence…”.

 

 

And look…here’s the BBC’s very own Matt McGrath doing the same for the IPCC…earning his nickname ‘Fido’…..I might have made that up….but a conclusion based upon analysis of the facts….

Climate report: Creating a sense of urgency or alarm?

Don’t be fooled…this isn’t McGarth doing real journalism and looking at the real science…it’s raising the usual straw man only to burn him later.

The staw man being poor old Dr Tol who seems to keep McGrath tapping away at his keyboard relentlessly…..

So is this [report] an alarmist step? asks McGrath.

Don’t be silly….it merely ” adds to the urgency rather than the alarm.”

McGarth tells us ‘The issue of alarmism was raised before the meeting by Prof Richard Tol, an economist who has long been a firm favourite of those who question the scale of climate impacts.’

Note the inclusion of ‘economist’….hmm…like Stern then….so quite qualified to talk about outcomes and scenarios then just as Stern is?  And a bit snide that ‘long been a firm favourite of those who question the scale of climate impacts.’

Tol is also professor of the economics of climate change at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam….no mention of that?

Tol specialises in energy economics and environmental economics, with a particular interest in climate change, such as the economics of global warming. Previously, Tol was a Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute. Before that, Tol was the Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change and director of the Center for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences and board member of the Center for Marine and Climate Research at the University of Hamburg. Tol was a board member of the International Max Planck Research Schools on Earth System Modeling and Maritime Affairs and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment.^[2] From 1998-2008 he was an adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon University‘s Department of Engineering and Public Policy, and from 2010-2011 an adjunct professor at Trinity College, Dublin‘s Department of Economics.

Anyway…to continue:

How do you reconcile the world of purple embers with the one of warming benefits?

According to Dr Chris Field  “We can use approaches to managing climate change as a way to build a better world, a world that is more robust, more secure, more vibrant…..and one of the things we need to do is open our eyes to the balances.

“If we’re dumb, it’s a serious, serious problem, and if we are smart it a serious problem, but one that we can manage.”

‘If we’re dumb?’   So McGrath is quite happy to ‘report’ someone’s abusive remarks about sceptics as being ‘dumb’ then?

Just remember Stern (and Bob Ward) is the paid for by Jeremy Grantham….you know the one who although he campaigns for a green planet and spends millions to attack climate sceptics and to push the AGW message says:

“Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.”

Nicholas Stern is chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change

It is sweet and right to lie for your Mori poll…..Mark Easton’s internationalist motto?

Had to laugh or cry, when Humphrys asked (at 08:55) ‘Are we becoming less nationalistic and more international?…who better to ask than Mark Easton.’

Who better to ask I suppose depending on whether you want an honest answer or not…Mark Easton being a very pro-immigration kinda-guy and anti-nationalist.

A coincidence that it was pointed out in the last post that ‘the thing the BBC doesn’t hold dear but rather holds in contempt… ‘values and the continuity of the country’s historic national identity: about what Britain stands for’…the BBC preferring instead open borders, cheap imported servants and a lovely diverse, cosmopolitan feel to London’

In 2012 Mori’s interpretation of their figures…..

The report also found Britons shared a strong national pride, with 61% saying they would rather be a citizen of Britain than any other country.

In 2014 the BBC’s intepretation of the latest figures:

Ask people “Who do we think we are?’ and the answer is as likely to be bird-watchers as Brits.

A not so subtle denigration of your pride in being British…..a lesser consideration apparently than being a birdwatcher.

And you have to get half way down the latest BBC report to find out that:

57% of people said they didn’t think there had been any change in their connection to people in other countries around the world

So most people still presumably have that ‘strong national pride’……..Hardly justifying the exaggerated BBC headline or indeed the whole thrust of Easton’s ‘promise’:

UK becoming ‘more local and global’

Every community is concerned and identifies first with their local area….and always has. To claim this is a new phenomenom of great significance is spin by Easton trying to change people’s perceptions of their own beliefs and what they mean….. creating a new ‘truth’.  All very Orwellian.

Just how much can you trust a BBC Mori poll?  Try this one from 2005:

Muslims ‘Take Pride’ In British Way Of Life

Britons endorse multi-cultural society — as British Muslims say immigrants should ‘integrate fully’

Most BRITISH Muslims support British laws and culture, and do not believe Islam is incompatible with British democracy, according to new research from MORI.

The survey shows that 62% of British people — and 82% of Muslims in Britain — agree with the statement: “Multiculturalism makes Britain a better place to live”. When asked if the policy of multiculturalism is a mistake that should be abandoned, 68% of people ( 74% Muslims ) disagreed”.

Half of British people (49%) and two-thirds of British Muslims (66%) do not think that Islam is incompatible with the values of British democracy.

Briton’s endorse multi-cultural society?……Yeah right…..the BBC’s intepretation of the value of a ‘pride in Britain‘ is different when they have an alternate message to propagate…that immigrants and ethnic communities ‘love Britain and are more British than the British’...then funnily enough British identity becomes an important factor to be cherished rather than sneered at.

Can’t imagine why the BBC didn’t similarly report the ‘national pride’ of French Muslims voting for the Front National.

The BBC, Mark Easton, via Mori, has conducted a poll of 2,500 ‘Brits’.  The BBC has placed it top of it’s ‘featured’ stories on the Frontpage…..

UK becoming ‘more local and global’

Data are weighted to the profile of the population……That is the only nod to the effects of immigration and self-isolated ghetto communities we get.

So the UK is becoming ‘more local and global’?

Note that ‘more’….as compared to when?  ‘When it comes to comparisons with a decade ago’ so essentially before mass immigration began…..many of that 11% who ‘felt more of a connection with other countries of the world’ …could they possibly be mostly the new ‘British citizens’?

And what does more connected mean?  Does it mean they therefore feel less connected with Britain….that is more connected, identifying more,  with Land X than with Britain…or just ‘more connected’ as in having the ability to connect to family and friends via the new technology.

From what Mori says it is the latter…..

‘It may be the impact of new technology and global media that is strengthening our relationship with the wider world.’

So ‘more connected’ purely means literally that…able to talk to people around the world….your family in Australia or other Liverpool fans in Argentina, dog lovers in Andalusia or whatever.

So not an interpretation that Easton wants…that of a new international breed of people unconcerned with the notion of borders and national identity….especially as…..

 ‘57% of people said they didn’t think there had been any change in their connection to people in other countries around the world’

So nearly 60% say there is no change in their views…..I doubt that any previous poll would have got a radically different figure….ask any soldier and he will say he is fighting firstly for his mates or his regiment not Queen and Country…it’s a standard answer in any interview…..

‘Contrary to popular belief soldiers don’t fight for Queen and country, they fight as they would rather die than let down their mates or their regiment.’

…..however that isn’t to say he isn’t in the end prepared to fight for Queen and Country….ironically from a Muslim soldier:

“My home is the UK. As a Muslim, that’s the place I’d happily die for and kill for. That’s the same way it’s going to remain until my dying day.

“My entire soul belongs to the UK and I’m more than proud to fight for this country.”

In fact when Mori did a poll last year this was their, not the BBC’s interpretation:

The report also found Britons shared a strong national pride, with 61% saying they would rather be a citizen of Britain than any other country.

So around 60% is evidence of a ‘strong national pride’…and note….57% can’t really be claimed as evidence of less pride in the Nation…especially considering the margins of errror.

In 2012 Mori said this:

The perception gap between national and local sentiments is easier to measure than to explain (‘hometown favouritism’ was one explanation offered by US academics in the late 1990s)

So Easton trying to spin a tale of us discarding national identity for a more local one is bunkum…..everyone throughout the history of mankind has probably identified more with their immediate surroundings, people and activities than an amorphous nation…that should not lead to the conclusion that nationality is not important to them.

Proof of the slippery interpretation by Easton comes from this:

The people of Northern Ireland emerge as the most likely in the UK to say they identify with their city, town or village.

Ask any Protestant if he is British and I doubt you’ll get a negative….so Easton trying to say people identifying firstly with their local area is a sign that they are less nationalistic is more bunkum….is it also a sneaky, underhand message he’s trying to present…the Northern Irish don’t identify with Britain…therefore Britain should hand over Northern Ireland to Eire?

Everyone identifies first with their family, their own values and ideas, then with the area where they were born or live, and then with their country…well, most people.

Easton exaggerates for his own effect saying:

‘It is notable that significantly more people appear to feel they are closer to the international community than say ties have weakened.’

With the global community, 11% more thought ties were closer than those who felt less close. However, 9% more people said connections with their own country were weakening, than those who thought they were strengthening.

Really?  ‘Significantly more people….’?   Well 2% more……considering that  ‘The margin of error on the overall UK results is plus or minus two percentage points, with a confidence level of 95%. Results for individual regions and nations have a margin of error between two and nine percentage points, depending on sample size.’  

I think Easton is over-egging things a bit.

Easton selects and highlights what he wants to emphasise for you to absorb and come to believe…your nationality means nothing to you……

What is striking about these answers is that none are aspects of identity that we are born with. Only 20% said their nationality was among the top three or four things they would tell a stranger was important about them.

‘Striking’ or obvious?  And of course it all depends on the question and the context.  Why would being ‘British’ be important or on your mind when going about your daily life?…it’s not something you think about…you are more likely to be thinking of going surfing with your mates or what the local school is doing for your kids than singing ‘Rule Britannia’ before every meal.

The use of ‘striking‘ tells us that Easton has a particualr line and an agenda here….to exaggerate the meaning of his ‘research’.

As for that…’none are aspects of identity that we are born with.’….the underlying line from that is that birthplace plays little part in your identity…..complete and utter tosh…….where you were born, and raised, is probably one the most powerful things someone might identify with…..just ask a Yorkshireman for instance….or a Sikh…..

Three-quarters of the UK’s Sikhs have experienced racism but 95% are proud of being born or living in Britain, a survey suggests.

Of course the BBC’s intepretation of the value of a ‘pride in Britain‘ is different when they have an alternate message to propagate…that immigrants and ethnic communities ‘love Britian and are more British than the British’...then funnily enough British identity becomes an important factor….from the Guardian…

83% of Muslims are proud to be a British citizen, compared to 79% of the general public.

Hmmm…in that study 79% of the general public are proud to be a British citizen…bit higher than 57% or 61%…….who to trust eh?

Then note this……

The survey asked respondents what aspect of their identity, other than job and family or friends, they would tell a stranger were most important. None of the top three answers would be found on a passport or ID card.

The aspect of identity picked by easily the largest proportion of people was “my interests and leisure activities”. Next came “my values and outlook”, closely followed by “my personal views and opinions”.

So people’s identity is wrapped up  in their values, outlook, personal views and opinions’?

In other words everything that the BBC attacks whilst trying to impose its own values, views and opinions upon the world.

And again note the sly dig…. None of the top three answers would be found on a passport or ID card.

But how do you identify yourself when someone asks about you.  Is it ‘British’ or do you give your own family name or the town you live in or were born in?  When asked where you come from do you say the UK or ‘Town X’?  It depends who is asking and where…if you’re abroad you’re going to say British or English or Scots etc……. Easton’s self serving manipulation of the figures proves nothing accept he can’t be trusted.

Another Mori poll from 2013 Easton hasn’t been keen to emphasise:

• Approximately ¾ of British people favour reducing immigration, on most recent surveys and polls.
  More…
• Large majorities in Britain have been opposed to immigration since at least the 1960s.
  More…
• Immigration is currently highly salient: over the past 15 years it has become one of the most commonly chosen “most important issues”.
  More…
• Close to 70% in a 2001 poll supported more migration among those with needed skills, and those with financial support for themselves or from family members, but more data are needed on this topic.

A piece by Janet Daley in the Telegraph regarding that thing that the BBC doesn’t hold dear but rather holds in contempt…’values and the continuity of the country’s historic national identity: about what Britain stands for’...the BBC preferring instead open borders, cheap imported servants and a lovely diverse, cosmopolitan feel to London….or rather those parts of  London they don’t actually live in, retreating to their expensive and exclusive liberal ghettos when darkness comes:

The political class is mired in delusion

This is a turning point in post-war national life. Politics is now about an argument that arises from the EU membership question but is really much, much bigger. It is about values and the continuity of the country’s historic national identity: about what Britain stands for, and about the trust that the electorate has traditionally had in the robustness of its institutions. Bizarrely, Ukip, which is often seen as a divisive presence, is helping to undermine one of the most genuinely divisive forces in British political life.

The argument it is propelling to the forefront of national consciousness cuts across class lines and the traditional social divides, because it is about the polity as a whole: the integrity of the nation as an actor on the world stage. An understanding of the importance of this, quite miraculously, seems to exist in almost every section of society and region of the country, with the possible exception of Westminster.

The one thing that has emerged with startling clarity, to a degree that is almost beyond argument, is that what I (and now Nigel Farage, bless him) have described as the present political class – meaning the incestuous, self-referring universe of Westminster professionals – is living in a state of clinical delusion.

The Ukip case is that there is a conspiracy between Big Politics, Big Business and Big Bureaucracy to put all of these fundamental principles at risk. That may or may not be true, but at the moment – with the unintentional help of the Westminster stage army – it is looking very plausible.

Of course that doesn’t just apply to politicians….it is just as relevant to those in the BBC who have a world view at odds with the general population.

And speaking of ‘liberal ghettos’ the BBC’s favourite blacktivist, Spike Lee, has come a cropper with his racist views…..he’s been attacking the gentrification by white interlopers into Brooklyn……’ripping into white privilege and ignorant intellectuals (?)‘ with a barrage of insults and hostile rhetoric aimed at the ‘motherf*****g Christopher Columbus syndrome’ where those ‘white interlopers’ discover a new neighbourhood and kick out the black ‘natives’.

Trouble is Lee has himself been part of that very process profiting hugely from buying and selling property in the area….presumably to those very same ‘white interlopers’.

Any bets that Evan Davis or Justin Webb find this tale interesting and irresistible? It has everything for them….a famous black activist, black people the victims of white dominance and supremacy and all intellectually and morally conflicted and embarrassed by the fact that those ‘whites’ are of a breed that Davis and Webb belong to….rich, white, liberal intellectuals who love that cosmopolitan, gentrified look and feel to a neighbourhood….something to feel guilty about as all good liberals have a need to be….pandering to the ‘ethnic’ whilst self-flagellating in an orgy of post-colonial guilt….gotta love it.

Wonder if the BBC will refer to this should Spike peak their interest:

REV. AL’S CAUGHT ON PROTEST TAPE CALLED MART OWNER A ‘WHITE INTERLOPER’

In 1995, a black Pentecostal Church, the United House of Prayer, which owned a retail property on 125th Street, asked Fred Harari, a Jewish tenant who operated Freddie’s Fashion Mart, to evict his longtime subtenant, a black-owned record store called The Record Shack. Sharpton led a protest in Harlem against the planned eviction of The Record Shack.

Sharpton told the protesters, “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.”

MASSACRE AT FREDDY’S IN HARLEM: FIRE FUELED BY ANTI-SEMITISM KILLS 8
“Burn the Jew Store Down”

The first law of journalism as told by John Humphrys…

‘First simplify, then exaggerate.’

Have to say that is pretty much the rule followed by the BBC’s climate change reporters….the refusal to take seriously any criticism of climate ‘science’, the refusal to genuinely analyse what the criticisms mean allowing the subsequent broadcasting of sweeping alarmist statements about the ‘inevitable’ consequences of global warming (despite there being little to none for 17 years) from famine, drought, island nations submerged below an ever rising sea to mass migration and war are all prime examples of Humphrys’ law in action.

‘What we are witnessing are successive distortions of the scientific message’

Humphrys has been quite vocal over the years about what a news broadcaster, a public service broadcaster,  should be providing the public with, what it is duty bound to provide…….

Humphrys says:

He feels that his job is to put politicians under pressure and hold them to account. It is his duty as a broadcaster in a democracy to hold politicians to account. The BBC reporters must however report accurately, or they should lose their jobs.

Talking to the BBC’s bosses on the Select Committee on BBC Charter Review 2005  :

Q1180  Lord Maxton: Who elected you?

Mr Humphrys: Nobody elected me.

Q1181  Lord Maxton: Then why do you think you have that job?

Mr Humphrys: I have the job because I have been appointed by the BBC to do it in the most simplistic sense, but it is my job, on behalf of my listeners, and that is the important bit of the sentence if I can finish that point . . .

Mr Humphrys: It is my job on behalf of the listeners—on behalf of the listeners, I repeat—to hold people in authority and power to account, to ask those questions in other words that the listeners themselves might want to ask and it can only be a matter of judgment and frequently of course I will get it wrong—or we will get it wrong—but what we have to do if we are doing our job properly is to ask those questions that the public would like to ask of their elected representatives or the people in power but cannot because they do not have the sort of access that people like me have. I would be failing in my responsibility if I did not ask the questions they wanted asked.

From Humphrys’ MacTaggart Lecture in 2004:

I want to talk about that other vital aspect of public service broadcasting: news.

I happen to believe it is the most important thing we do.  By a mile.  If we get it wrong we forfeit the right to exist.

We should not be fearful of standing up to those in power. That is our job.

We should subject politicians to rigorous and relentless scrutiny. That is what the public wants and that is what the public has a right to expect.

Where do most people get most of their politics these days?  Where do they see and hear politicians being tested?  Most of it is on the BBC.  That happens to be a fact.

We need more not less investigative journalism.

We need MUCH more straightforward political analysis.  Filling a studio with people shouting at each other about the Euro is all very well, but it’s even more important to explain what the issues are.

The problem with that is firstly the journalists have to know their subject and secondly they have to approach it strictly from an impartial viewpoint without already having formed or having been given pre-conceived ideas….the problem being most don’t know their subject, and they are already convinced of, for example, climate change, based on that false or incomplete knowledge…….listen to Justin Webb bluffing his way through this interview with Nigel Lawson on climate change.

He also makes this important and highly relevant comment……

Public service broadcasting can and must make an important contribution to the democratic process. It can only do it if we are not cowed by those in power.

When you listen to what the likes of the sinister Andrew Miller MP have to say and the BBC’s lack of reaction can anyone claim the BBC is not ‘cowed by those in power’?

At the very least it has decided not to challenge whatever a politician says about climate change on the basis that ‘climate change is happening’.….despite ‘All our evidence is that, although we do not have specific evidence of climate change itself…..’

We had a look at the latest drive to enforce a climate orthodoxy upon the world…one message, all the time …..politicians were seen to be trying to control and direct what the BBC should report and who it interviews.

The sad thing is the BBC didn’t seem to object and are quite happy to propagate the government message….that is the result of the BBC taking a position rather than continuing to be journalists devoted to investigating the issues and getting to the truth..instead they accept global warming is happening and that it is man-made and from that basis they have decided not to question the new orthodoxy, and not just accept it but to go forth and promote it…..question is…what if the scientists are wrong…who will ask the questions then?  Or does the circus continue as no one is left to challenge it?

The BBC’s outright acceptance of AGW allows people like MP Andrew Miller seek to block climate sceptics from the airwaves and newsprint, to intimidate and bully the sceptics….he tries to excuse his ‘McCarthyism’ by claiming the sceptics are unqualified to talk credibly on the subject of science…whereas of course he is….or is not, judged by his own standard of who is qualified.

The result of this, as intended, is to close down all debate, or rather all criticism in the media allowing politicians to ramp up the rhetoric and the taxes.

Charles Moore in the Telegraph states:

The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a century or more. However interesting the scientific inquiries involved, therefore, it can have almost no value as a prediction. Yet it is as a prediction that global warming (or, as we are now ordered to call it in the face of a stubbornly parky 21st century, “global weirding”) has captured the political and bureaucratic elites. All the action plans, taxes, green levies, protocols and carbon-emitting flights to massive summit meetings, after all, are not because of what its supporters call “The Science”.

Remember what Humphrys said about the BBC and News:

News….I happen to believe it is the most important thing we do.  By a mile.  If we get it wrong we forfeit the right to exist.

The trouble is it isn’t the BBC that stops existing when it gets the news wrong here….it’s freedom of speech, democracy, true science and a complete culture based on ‘CO2’ which is now classed as a pollutant to be eliminated…along with all those things that produce it such as jobs.

What Miller is saying is that regardless of the science, regardless of whether the science is right or wrong, no one should be allowed to criticise the consensus view.…baring in mind there are massive social, industrial and financial consequences to policies based upon the ‘science’ you might think that serious debate is a vital prequisite before these hugely costly projects are set in motion….projects which are mostly vanity projects upon which rest the politician’s, and the scientist’s, credibility and career prospects.

That is news in anyone’s book.

Which is why the BBC should be having as many critics of the science on as possible….if only to have those who support the science come on and refute such criticisms and confirm the science with real evidence.

It is not sufficient for the BBC to fall back on claims that there is a consensus view…it is after all only a ‘view’, only one interpretation of the science.

David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards for the BBC,  said  ‘We seek to avoid equal time and status for scientists and non scientists.’

But what if a non-scientist has read the ‘science’ and found a number of critical errors or discrepancies that are obvious to anyone scientist or not….should he be silenced as Miller suggests…on the basis that he isn’t a scientist and secondly that he is undermining the momentum of the grand project by casting doubt on it?

What happens then?  They ignore criticism however valid and continue regardless recklessly spending vast amounts of money to solve a problem that either doesn’t exist or is caused by something else other than the politically convenient CO2….Charles Moore spells it out again:

‘The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government.’

The truth is the greens, the scientists and the politicians desperately want man-made global warming to be true for their own reasons…allowing them to take ever more control over society and resources in the name of a cleaner, safer planet…it used to be that it was the ‘industrial/military complex’ that was the great threat to peace and freedom…always generating non-existent threats to justify the massive spending and the imposition of draconian laws…it is now, an irony, the very people who opposed that complex who are the greatest threat to society, its well being and success, using the same excuses to justify the same massive spending and draconian laws.

‘The international war against carbon totters on, because Western governments see their green policies, like zombie banks, as too big to fail. The EU, including Britain, continues to inflict expensive pain upon itself. Last week, the latest IPCC report made the usual warnings about climate change, but behind its rhetoric was a huge concession. The answer to the problems of climate change lay in adaptation, not in mitigation, it admitted. So the game is up.’

The BBC’s, and the whole Media’s, job is to challenge and question the alarmist claims, not to do so allows horrendous mistakes and injustices not to mention corruption.

John Humphrys once, many times,  stated that it was the BBC’s job to hold power to account:

Holding to account people in positions of power – that’s absolutely essential.

The problem is the BBC doesn’t hold power to account over climate change.  They allow on  a few sceptics but mainly to attempt to ridicule or undermine them….Nurse and Delingpole spring to mind.  The climate lobby, scientist or not, is regarded as legitimate and credible….it is given the presumption that whatever it says is correct and true by the BBC and that any critic has a political or commercial agenda….such agendas of course are never associated with the consensus lobby….the BBC’s refusal to challenge Tim Yeo over his vested intersts and conflict of interests is the perfect, and very recent,  illustration of that.

The fact the green lobby doesn’t want  a debate should be raising a few, a lot of, suspicions and doubts…remember how they tried to hide their dodgy science as demonstrated by the ‘climategate’ emails….and the BBC environmental journalists went into overdrive to defend their mates at the CRU?

The fact is the science is far from settled…there is absolutely no proof that CO2 is the cause of global warming……a warming that is a possible mere 0.4°C man-made over 100 years by IPCC standards. Sure we know the ‘physics’…in a laboratory….completely different when trying to apply rules learnt in isolation in a laboratory to a complex, highly interactive climate system that is responsive to a vast, vast array of variables…..even beetles in a Canadian forest can raise the local temperature 1°C over a wide region apparently.

However when you have senior BBC journalists who have a close working relationship with the likes of the CRU, who work hand in hand with a climate propagandist, who accept money from a climate change propaganda unit, who admit they  ‘have spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change’, who take advice from such scientists on what line to take in their reports and programmes, you know not to take the BBC’s coverage of climate seriously.

Journalism or propaganda?  It’s certainly not news tainted as it is by spin and misinformation, and it’s certainly not holding power to account….is that a public service ‘on behalf of the listeners’…or on behalf of Harrabin’s mates at the CRU?

So has the BBC ‘forfeit its right to exist’ as Humphrys might suggest?

‘The BBC reporters must however report accurately, or they should lose their jobs.’

David Rose in the Mail has an article that examines the less than democratic outcome of attitudes  displayed by the new thought police typified by Andrew Miller MP with regard to who can and who can’t talk about climate change and what it is that they will be allowed to say:

The real cost of Climate McCarthyism, apart from big bills, is to free speech

At the heart of the current, poisoned debate about global warming lies a paradox. Thanks to the ‘pause’, the unexpected plateau in world surface temperatures which has now lasted for 17 years, the science is less ‘settled’ than it has been for years.

Yet, despite this uncertainty, those who use it to justify a range of potentially ruinous energy policies have become ever more extreme in their pronouncements. Their latest campaign is an attempt to silence anyone who disagrees.

This reached a new and baleful milestone last week, with a report from the Commons Science and Technology Committee saying BBC editors must obtain special ‘clearance’ before interviewing climate ‘sceptics’.

The committee’s chairman, Labour MP Andrew Miller, likened sceptics to the Monster Raving Loony Party, suggesting they should be allowed to express their views with similar frequency. High profile commentators, including the Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey, often describe climate change sceptics as ‘deniers’, on a par with those who reject evidence of the Holocaust.

Academics who deviate from the perceived ‘correct’ line risk vilification. The most recent example is Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, who had the temerity to remove his name from a UN climate report because he said it was ‘alarmist’.

The architects of [climate] policies know they have failed, but they have no alternative except more of the same. Maybe it’s because their argument is weak that they resort to climate McCarthyism. The cost, apart from higher energy bills, is to democracy, and free speech.

Here is another of those non-existent scientists who have awkward things to say about the ‘science’ and the politics surrounding it:

A submission “The views of an independent physicist” by Professor Pierre DARRIULAT 1 to the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s inquiry about the latest conclusions of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Review (AR5)
Written evidence submitted by Professor Pierre Darriulat (IPC0049)

The inquiry recently launched by the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee was brought to my attention by colleagues of mine who encouraged me to make my views· known to the Committee.

In my opinion the main point to appreciate is that as it has the purpose of addressing policy makers, the SPM can not be a scientific document. When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and must therefore recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions, both in the mechanisms at play and in the available data; or they try to convey what they “consensually” think is the right message but at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter option. The result is they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message asking for urgent reaction, which is quite contrary to what the scientific message conveys.

What we are witnessing are successive distortions of the scientific message of the AR5 report on the Physical Science Basis: first from the report to the SPM by those who wrote and/or amended the SPM, then from the SPM to the press by those who speak in the name of the IPCC (including the IPCC chairman) then from the press to the general public by green activists who too often behave irresponsibly in misrepresenting the findings of the work.

“Good morning, good morning..” Hope you slept the whole night through and here is an on-time brand NEW Open Thread for you to populate with instances of egregious BBC bias!

Here’s an interesting instance of clear BBC editorial bias. Hat tip to George R..

“This decision is good for Martin McGuinness, peace and for Sinn Féin.” says BBC Political Editor Martina Purdy

-from –

“Martin McGuinness to attend banquet with Queen when President Higgins visits UK”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-26903463

‘Daily Mail’ has:-

“Ex-IRA commander Martin McGuinness WILL be a guest of the Queen at Windsor Castle banquet”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597964/Ex-IRA-commander-Martin-McGuinness-guest-Queen-Windsor-Castle-banquet.html#ixzz2y7J2iNg8

Why is it as if Martina is a cheerleader for Butcher Boy McGuinness….

The BBC may well have all but erased 9/11 from its collective memory, but not George W Bush. I heard a real sneering piece on the Today programme this morning mocking his Art Paintings. Some expert was wheeled on to make patronising comments!