One hundred and twenty nine people slaughtered by Muslims in Paris and nearly 400 injured and the BBC thinks the real  problem is a few ‘Islamophobes’ who daub grafitti on Mosques.  The terrorists are the real victims here.

Spot the different tone and narrative of these two contrasting BBC reports…

Paris attacks turn spotlight on Saint Denis banlieue

Paris attacks: Mosques attacked in US and Canada

If perhaps you don’t have a job it’s apparently OK to murder as many people as possible to express your anger.  However, if you spraypaint a Mosque in order to express your anger about Muslims mass murdering people in Paris you are an evil, racist bastard.

Gotta love the BBC.

“Al-Islam will prevail over all other ways of life. Look at how [the] Muslim population is increasing in the UK.”  Deputy Head of Carlton Bolling school in Bradford, Akhmed Hussain

 

How do you deal with Islamic supremacism?  You import millions of Muslim migrants and allow Islamic values and laws to flourish.

It is here already in the UK:

‘I could never have imagined, nine years on, that the Taliban
would be claiming to have ‘won the war’ in Afghanistan. Or, much worse, that our
politicians and Muslim ‘leaders’ here would allow their twisted ideology to
spread across Britain. Make no mistake, Taliban devotees are in our schools,
playgrounds, homes, mosques, political parties, public service, private firms
and universities.’

The BBC has a narrative on radicalisation…it’s all due to Muslims being victimised, the Iraq War, foreign policy, poverty, disenfranchisement, discrmination…as the BBC’s Phil Mackie enlightened us….’a population which already feels isolated and victimised and put upon‘…..but I don’t need to spell it out…the Guardian’s recent editorial is a perfect template for that BBC narrative…more Islam to stop those who want more Islam from bombing us….sounds awfully like appeasement and was precisely the narrative peddled by the not so ‘moderate’ MCB as it tried to make schools adopt Islam friendly policies…their line being that more Islam would mean Muslim pupils wouldn’t be alienated…’The result of meeting Muslim needs in mainstream schools is that Islam and Muslims become a normal part of British life and that we become fully integrated in this way.‘……the same MCB that was closely linked to the Trojan Horse scandal in Birmingham…..’The alleged ringleader of the Trojan Horse plot wrote a detailed blueprint for the radical “Islamisation” of secular state schools which closely resembles what appears to be happening in Birmingham.‘…..

The Guardian view on defeating Isis: winning hearts and minds

Editorial

Violent jihad predates 9/11 and it will outlast Islamic State, as Isis now dwarfs al-Qaida. Even if inflicting military defeat on such a shifting target can be done, it would not end violent extremism. As the pool of potential jihadis, newly trained in techniques of terror in the training camps of the self-declared caliphate, grows more numerous, the question of how to shrink its operating space becomes increasingly important. This is not a question of drones and bombs, but of hearts and minds.

Like all jihadi terror movements, Isis seeks to foment division, to sort the world into supporters and the rest. This is a violent campaign of disruption intended to destroy multiculturalism wherever it exists. With fear and terror Isis intends to sow mistrust and hatred between communities.

The terrorists themselves are often well educated and from relatively well-to-do backgrounds, but their message can be especially appealing to those who feel alienated and disadvantaged. It is not the heart of the matter, but thwarting this attempt to stoke a war of civilisations would do well to address that sense of unfairness. That means tackling the Muslim experience, common across Europe, of economic exclusion. Too often to be a Muslim means underachievement at school, difficulty in finding a job, a struggle for promotion, a lack of successful role models. From a sense of shared injustice, a shared identity can develop, one that may be reinforced by, rather than springing from, religion as conventionally understood. It can be magnified by a lack of voice in government and the absence of any constructive interaction: in Britain, Muslim communities complain there is no regular contact between their own leaders and ministers, while the Home Office’s Prevent strategy is widely seen as a discriminatory vehicle for surreptitious monitoring of innocent Muslim activity.

Inclusion means reaching out to every community: for example, promoting and monitoring diversity, across the private as well as the public sector. But it also means recognising that Muslim communities are both the poorest and the least participant in public life. It is to try to identify the underlying reasons for this that the grassroots organisation Citizens UK has set up a commission to trace the barriers to Muslim engagement in public life, which is to be chaired by the former attorney general Dominic Grieve, and includes a former head of MI6 and a former commander of British land forces.

The British government’s view of counter-extremism is too narrowly drawn. It seeks to rank Muslims on a scale from “extremist” to “moderate” and to reward the moderates while punishing the extremists. It does not understand that any organisation that takes government money and support is quickly discredited among the very people it is meant to influence. Talking about “extremism” in this context can become confusing and damaging too. To call jihadis (who are often religiously ignorant when recruited) extremist Muslims suggests that they are also extremely Muslim. But there are many Muslims who are devout and passionate and who interpret their religion as demanding nothing more than peace and self-sacrifice.

Western governments have a difficult task, seeking to reassure the majority populations without alienating or patronising another audience just as vital. To call Islam “a religion of peace” can appear to be a crude attempt to manipulate both audiences at once. Similarly, the attempt to preach “British values”: schools should of course teach tolerance and open-mindedness, but this is done by example and by culture, not with slogans. And the people to show that Islam can enrich British values are Muslims themselves, in their ordinary lives. They won’t do so because they are hectored to but because they identify the peace and charity that they actually practise both with Britain and with Islam. Without compromising core values of human rights and equality, there needs to be a better-recognised space for faith communities in secular society. This year, a handful of primary schools in east London banned fasting during Ramadan, inappropriate and unnecessary since young children are not expected to fast.

Finally, most problematic is the need to recognise that some foreign policy decisions – whether of omission or commission – shape Muslim opinion. That does not necessarily mean making different decisions, but it does mean greater awareness. It means recognising that the best weapon against the jihadis, the one they fear the most, is solidarity.

 

The BBC’s Graham Satchell is overcome with emotion for the victims of  the Paris terror attacks……

I might have had some respect for that if he didn’t work for an organisation that within hours of the Paris attack was trying to excuse the killers’ actions and blame them upon French society itself, and has subsequently kept up a relentless narrative of Muslim victims driven to become ‘radical’ killers by an uncaring France.  The BBC seems completely unable to contemplate that these ‘radicals’ might just want to destroy Western society and live in a Muslim state under Sharia law.

Not as if some at the BBC don’t recognise this is a clash of cultures……(H/T Craig at Is the BBC biased?)…

‘Last night’s Newsnight special ended with a dramatic ‘piece to camera’ from Emily Maitlis in Paris:

Well, no expected to see us here back in the same city twice in one year. We were here in January after the Charlie Hebdo attacks and what’s striking is how we tried to to make sense of them then. Was it, we asked, about press freedom? Was it about satire? Was it about causing offence? The answer, in the light of what’s happened here now, is clearly ‘no’. This is a war on all our culture and all our countries. And it almost certainly won’t end here in France. But from all of us here, good night!’

 

Even Obama admits there is a clash between the values espoused by Muslims and those held by Peoples who hold more universal, less fundamentalist values…

“Once again we’ve seen an outrageous attack to terrorize innocent civlians,” Obama said, adding that it is an “attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share.”

The BBC prefers to pander to the Islamists who use ‘human rights’ groups as fronts for their Islamic supremacist scheming.  The BBC is more than ready to ask groups such as ‘Cage’ or MPACUK for their opinions and treat them with a totally unwarranted respect, not challenging anything they say, giving them credibility and authority that then feeds back into their own propaganda making it more high profile and influential.

Here the BBC gives the Islamist IHRC a platform to peddle its anti-terror legislation line, hardly a surprise that the likes of Cage and the IHRC are opposed to such restrictions on Islamist behaviour…Government policy ‘negatively affects’ Muslims

Who is the IHRC’s spokesperson?  One Arzu Merali, who says ‘”We have an environment now, where Muslim people feel they are suspected and where life is increasingly difficult. The impact of government policies, in particular those related with security, have really had an impact on silencing Muslims – not from a point of view of just talking about political issues, but even to report anti-Muslim hatred.”

Silencing Muslims?  Really?  They all seem rather vocal.

Why does the BBC give such people a platform, uncritical and unchallenged, when it is clear that there is a clash between Islamic values and Liberal, democratic ones especially as that same Arzu Merali indicates she has a problem with those ‘universal human rights’ cherished by Obama?…..she thinks Islam is the answer…..

As a human rights activist who sees cultural imperialism in current human rights discourses, I am at ease with the various arguments generated by western academia to deconstruct the problems that surround the (lack of) universality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, its inherent racism and cultural bias, how it really doesn’t assist the most oppressed peoples of the world and so on….I can tell anyone at a hundred paces what’s wrong with the current human rights regimes – I can not find people who can pose an alternative ethic. As a Muslim I want to scream out loud, that Islam fits that mould.

Islam is the answer but which Islam…this one she suggests, not unlike the one put forward by the Islamic State is it?….

Islam proper – the true and authentic, the most close to the time of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his companions or family, or the four (or five) major schools of thought or the most sublime tarika and so on and on and on.

When will the BBC start to give these Islamists a much harder time and start to challenge and question their narrative?

At least we have good old Andrew Neil…….shame more aren’t so passionate to defend the ‘enlightenment’ values…..

Maybe he’s making up for shamefully kowtowing to the Islamist Mehdi Hasan.

Antarctic ice is increasing, which, as with the ‘pause’, is a bit of a problem for the BBC’s climate alarmists. Their solution to the ‘pause’ was to ignore the fact that no one has explained what has caused the pause and instead have chosen to claim that it is definitely caused by the ocean suddenly absorbing more heat at a faster rate than it has ever done before….why it should suddenly do this is left unexplained….as is the 30 plus other reasons given by the ‘consensus’ scientists for the pause.  The ‘ocean heat sink’ theory is one that of course fits neatly into Harrabin’s own private narrative about climate change.

In a similar vein the BBC pretty much ignores the ice growth in the Antarctic, or claims it is, naturally, due to climate change, global warming.

Not only does the BBC ignore the ice growth it in fact, somewhat dishonestly, claims that the Antarctic is in fact disappearing fast and will contribute to a large rise in sea levels.

This article by the BBC’s Jonathan Amos is a master class is deception and misdirection…..Big Antarctic ice melt scenarios ‘not plausible’

We are told that ‘Scientists say the contribution of a melting Antarctica to sea-level rise this century will be significant and challenging, but that some nightmare scenarios are just not realistic.’

What?!!  The BBC playing down climate change!  Clever tactic of course, it makes the BBC look more credible and the following narrative they peddle more believable….a narrative which is the same old same old just more carefully shaped to sound less alarmist whilst still trying desperately to alarm the reader.

Amos slots in a lot of phrases intended to lend an air of authority and credibility to his tale…..

‘The latest work, which appears in the journal Nature, was led by Catherine Ritz from the Université Grenoble Alpes, France, and Tamsin Edwards, from the Open University, UK.

It incorporates a lot of real-world physics – knowledge about the shape of the continent’s bedrock and how the ice moves over it.

It is also strongly anchored by the satellite observations that are tracking changes on the continent today.

“With our model we have done some 3,000 simulations,” explained Dr Edwards

Yes, 3,000 simulations….all with the same inputs, the same computer programmes and the same mindset….rubbish in, rubbish out.

Liked this….downplaying the possible sea-level rise at the beginning of the piece…’The most likely outcome is an input of about 10cm to global waters by 2100.  But the prospect of a 30cm-or-more contribution – claimed by some previous research – has just a one-in-20 chance.’….only to claim this was a likely scenario at the end….‘”Using the very best satellite measurements as a benchmark, Ritz and colleagues show that there is an outside chance that Antarctica could contribute 30cm to sea levels over the next century – substantially more than was anticipated at the time of the last IPCC report. “So although extreme ice losses are an unlikely prospect, there is no reason to be complacent about the impacts of climate change on our lifestyles,” he told BBC News.’

That ‘outside chance’ is given a lot of prominence by Amos for some reason…..Harrabin has taught him well.

Just more dodgy climate ‘science’ from the BBC.

Roger Harrabin has spun a few comments by professor Richard Tol into a huge confection of pro-climate change pap to sugarcoat the usual bitter pill that Harrabin tries to ram down our throats on climate.

Harrabin starts with this rather dramatic headline…Society ‘to be hit by climate change’ 

What he is less inclined to emphasise is that what Tol is talking about are the economic effects of climate change and that they are relatively minor… Harrabin dodges Tol’s main conclusion that those effects will be far less serious than climate alarmists like to predict and that climate change is not the most pressing danger for the world…..’Statements that climate change is the biggest (environmental) problem of humankind are unfounded: We can readily think of bigger problems.’

Here is Tol’s latest conclusion which is not reflected at all by Harrabin’s sexed up headline…

‘Climate change will probably have a limited impact on the economy and human welfare in the 21st century.’

This is the ‘dramatic’ effect of climate change up to 2.5 degrees…

‘A global warming of 2.5ºC would make the average person feels as if she had lost 1.3% of her income. (1.3% is the average of the 11 estimates at 2.5ºC.)’

1.3% of your income?  You wouldn’t even notice….especially as by the time 2.5 degrees is reached your income will have increased by far more than 1.3%

Conclusion

In sum, breaking the 2ºC target is not a disaster. The most serious impacts are symptoms of poverty rather than climate change. Other impacts are unlikely to have a substantial effect on human welfare.

Interesting that Harrabin likes to use the word ‘Contrarian’ to describe climate sceptics…a word which suggests irrational, stubborn disbelief rather than a critique based upon genuine reason and science….Harrabin once again is trying to discredit and insult the sceptics.

Harrabin’s article, based upon his ‘Changing Climate’ programme is as dodgy, if not more so than that programme.

He sets up sceptic, Matt Ridley, up for a fall and places him in opposition to Tol…..now that is highly dishonest because Ridley bases his comments on the science of Tol…something Harrabin doesn’t mention in this article (but admits in this interview with Tol on a site run by Harrabin’s old mate and climate activist, Dr Joe Smith, from the propagandist CMEP which he and Harrabin used to manipulate the BBC’s climate programming via their infamous seminars……RH ‘I think he references you in order to make that conclusion.‘)

Here is Harrabin’s spin…

‘Human societies will soon start to experience adverse effects from manmade climate change, a prominent economist has warned. Prof Richard Tol predicts the downsides of warming will outweigh the advantages with a global warming of 1.1C – which has nearly been reached already. Prof Tol is regarded by many campaigners as a climate “sceptic”.  He has previously highlighted the positive effects of CO2 in fertilising crops and forests.  His work is widely cited by climate contrarians.’

Note how he tries to portray Tol as in the ‘contrarian’ camp….he does this in order to suggest that Tol has ‘seen the light’ and come into the climate change fold…when in fact he has always been a believer.

Then we get to what Ridley says…

‘Matt Ridley, the influential Conservative science writer, said he believed the world would probably benefit from a temperature rise of up to 2C.

“I think we probably will see 1.5 degrees of warming. The point is most people think 2C is when it turns catastrophic. That’s not right. The literature is very clear; 2C is when we start to get harm. Up until then we get benefit,” he said.’

Harrabin doesn’t tell us that Ridley is quoting Tol…curiously however he then tells us that Ridley is quoting another scientist and goes on to rubbish Ridley…

‘On fertilisation Matt Ridley refers to unpublished work by Professor Ranga Myneni from Boston University.

But he told BBC News Lord Ridley had accurately quoted his research on the impacts of current CO2 levels, but was unduly complacent about future warming.

“I am worried about how this work is being interpreted, by Lord Ridley.’

Ridley ‘interpreted’ that work like this…he also quoted another scientist to back him up, not mentioned by Harrabin…

‘As Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become less green. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types.

Dr Randall Donohue and colleagues of the CSIRO Land and Water department in Australia also analysed satellite data and found greening to be clearly attributable in part to the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect.’

Why does Harrabin not tell the reader that Ridley is quoting Tol?  Highly dishonest of Harrabin.

But what did Tol himself say originally?…

In 2009 he said this…

‘In short, even though total economic effects of 1–2°C warming may be positive, incremental impacts beyond that level are likely to be negative.’

Then in may this year, 2015, he said this….

‘Since 2009, however, more estimates of the economic impact of climate change have been published. These new results do affect the fitted trend, but not in the way suggested by Mr Ward. The new trend shows positive impacts for warming up to about two degrees global warming, just like the old trend did. The new trend, however, shows markedly less negative impacts for more profound warming than did the old trend. In other words, in the last five years, we have become less pessimistic about the impacts of climate change.’

Pretty clear…up to 2 degrees we still get benefits economically from climate change..the benefits reduce after 1.1 degrees but are still positive.

This is what Ridley said in 2013...the basis for Harrabin’s contempt…

‘There are many likely effects of climate change: positive and negative, economic and ecological, humanitarian and financial. And if you aggregate them all, the overall effect is positive today — and likely to stay positive until around 2080. That was the conclusion of Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University after he reviewed 14 different studies of the effects of future climate trends.

To be precise, Prof Tol calculated that climate change would be beneficial up to 2.2˚C of warming from 2009 (when he wrote his paper).

Now Prof Tol has a new paper, published as a chapter in a new book, called How Much have Global Problems Cost the World?, which is edited by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, and was reviewed by a group of leading economists. In this paper he casts his gaze backwards to the last century. He concludes that climate change did indeed raise human and planetary welfare during the 20th century.’

Just how certain is Tol about the negative aspects of climate change?….‘The uncertainty is rather large, however. Taking the confidence interval at face value, the impact of climate change does not significantly deviate from zero until 3.5°C warming…At 3.0ºC of warming, impacts are negative and deteriorating, and its uncertainty is widening. It is likely that the world will warm beyond 3.0ºC. Yet, beyond that point, there are few estimates only. Instead, there is extrapolation and speculation.’

Let’s just see that again….’the impact of climate change does not significantly deviate from zero until 3.5°C warming‘….no significantly negative effects until we get to 3.5 degrees?

Here is Tol recently defending his 2 degrees conclusion….

The BBC has surprised us all…….a story about a Muslim who isn’t a hero…The myth of Zouheir, a ‘hero Muslim security guard’ in Paris

The BBC tells us that this is ‘A compelling story about a heroic Muslim security guard stopping a suicide bomber from entering the Stade de France on Friday, saving perhaps hundreds of lives, is making the rounds on social media. But it’s not true.’

How do they know it’s not true?…

‘The rumour sprang from a gripping account of the events outside the stadium which was published by the Wall Street Journal on Sunday. The story quoted a security guard who asked to only be identified by his first name, Zouheir. The man described how one of the suicide attackers had a ticket to the match between France and Germany, but was turned away from the gates when guards found his explosive vest. The man backed away from security guards and detonated the explosives.

Zouheir gave a detailed account of events at the stadium, statements that were confirmed to the Wall Street Journal reporters by a police officer. But although the story relied on his account, it wasn’t actually him who turned away the bomber – a detail that was confirmed to BBC Trending by Journal reporter Joshua Robinson.‘

Hmmm….‘a detail confirmed to BBC Trending’……the BBC gives the impression that the WSJ story was misleading and it was ony the BBC’s intrepid investigative journalism that uncovered the truth about that ‘detail’.  However, that’s not true…the original WSJ story quite clearly stated that the security guard was not stationed at the bomber’s location and was merely relaying what the guards who were there had told him…

‘PARIS—At least one of the attackers outside France’s national soccer stadium had a ticket to the game and attempted to enter the 80,000-person venue, according to a Stade de France security guard who was on duty and French police.

The guard—who asked to be identified only by his first name, Zouheir—said the attacker was discovered wearing an explosives vest when he was frisked at the entrance to the stadium about 15 minutes into the game. France was playing an exhibition against Germany inside.

While attempting to back away from security, Zouheir said, the attacker detonated the vest, which was loaded with explosives and bolts, according to Paris prosecutor François Molins. Zouheir, who was stationed by the players’ tunnel, said he was briefed on the sequence by the security frisking team at the gate.’

Kind of suspect the BBC missed the ‘trending’ story about Zouheir and would have run it if they had known of it….now,  scrambling for a story try to take the professional high ground, they criticise their fellow journalists in the Press for their mistake.  The only disappointment must be that the hated Daily Mail got the story right…

‘The terrorist walked away from the guard after he was frisked and detonated his vest moments later.  Investigators admitted that all of the terrorists wore identical explosive vests. The Wall Street Journal spoke to one of the security team on duty at the stadium named only as Zouheir.  He said that one of his colleagues turned the terrorist away after frisking the suspect, who is believed to have had a match ticket. ‘

The story ran on Sunday originally so why does BBC Trending only pick up on it today (Bit ironic for a news service supposed to be ‘on trend’)….The BBC’s Mike Wending Tweets to the WSJ journo…..

  mike wendling ‏@mwendling 8h8 hours ago

@landauro @JoshRobinson23 just to be clear, he wasn’t the one who stopped the bomber at SdF, right? People jumping to conclusions…

@mwendling He was not. He was a source on the story that we later stood up with confirmation from a police source.

Liked this exchange…

Curious how a ‘hero’ has to be ‘Muslim’ but a terrorist most definitely is not!

Roger Harrabin.  What to make of him?  Liar, fraud, dishonest, untrustworthy, propagandist, in the pay of the climate lobby?  You decide.

Harrabin has just broadcast the first of his alarmist tracts on climate change designed to soften the listener up to accept, if not demand, action on climate change from politicians at the Paris climate talks.  The tone of the programme was every bit as insidious, malignant and dishonest as you might have expected from the BBC’s climate propagandist.

First, perhaps he reads this site….I have consistently reminded people that Harrabin is a climate change campaigner and not a science journalist, and definitely not a scientist….The most obvious evidence to use is what comes out of his own mouth…

‘I have spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change’

However today he changed that to…

‘A topic I have reported on for more than 1/4 of a century’

Like to think we have at least a small effect on his reporting…even if it is only to hide his own propensity for pro-climate change propaganda.

Interesting that the first programme was about ‘the science’…a subject that Harrabin and his climate lobby chums previously decided was settled and that the only question was how we should deal with the consequences of climate change.  So why the change, why does he now want to look at the science?  Well, he doesn’t.  There was no evidence whatsoever put forward to prove climate change was man-made…what we got was a definite statement from Harrabin at the end that ‘the world is warming and it is largely driven by man’.

Harrabin started with a cheap shot by trying to paint sceptics as idiots, uneducated, ill-informed and religious, right-wing nutters having selected, as an example of a ‘denier’, a US Republican who didn’t believe in ‘Evolution’…thus proving her intellectually incapable of understanding the science….the science that Harrabin himself studiously avoids.  Are there any climate alarmists who don’t believe in Evolution?  Harrabin didn’t tell us, picking his targets carefully to bolster his own narrative.  Could have chosen the current Pope of course…pretty certain he believes in God’s creationism…

Pope Francis has given the climate movement just what it needed — faith

What a nutter…obviously can’t believe a word he says….jut so lacking in credibility.

Then again belief in man-made climate change does seem to be more about ‘faith’ that fact.

Interesting that Harrabin feels able to use the words ‘denier’ and ‘denial’ throughout the piece in relation to sceptics, and the phrase ‘Lukewarmers’ uttered with a sneering condescension….loves the term ‘mainstream scientists’ though….uses it like a weapon or Kryptonite, perhaps even Holy Water, to vanquish all foes.

We were supposed to learn about the ‘science’ of climate change from wine and the effects of a changing climate upon it…but of course all that tells us is that the climate is changing, at least short term.  What it doesn’t tell us is why and by who or what.

Harrabin had on Matt Ridley who is in the moderately sceptical camp…but only to dismiss every thing he said….Harrabin let him speak and then wheeled in the ‘mainstream scientists’ to dismiss him out of hand….one told us Ridley was ‘a good story teller’….another suggested that his assertion that 1.5 degrees was a possible limit to warming was not at all viable (despite 1.5 degrees being in the IPCC’s own range of predictions)…he then came up with his own ‘viable’ possibility…of 6 degrees.

Harrabin denied there was a ‘pause’ in warming insisting that the heat had vanished into the oceans….question…why now all of a sudden, why not before 1998 then?  What suddenly made the oceans start absorbing all that heat…and where is the increase in water vapour that that would produce?…the BBC tells us there is no discernable increase….water vapour being the most effective planet warmer…so why the pause?  Logic suggests that the oceans, if they are warming, are doing so at the same rate as ever, and  that the ‘pause’ must be caused by something else other than heat absorbtion into the oceans.

Harrabin moans that the IPCC’s remit wasn’t to predict short term climate…and so they missed the pause….so how can they attribute current warming, short term, to any cause and claim that it as a long term scenario?

Harrabin contrarily then told us that the planet is subject to natural, short term fluctuations (unpredictable presumably?) that meant scientists missed the pause….how then can he attribute the pause to heat being ‘hidden’ by ocean warming if the ‘pause’ is the result of natural fluctuations such as solar energy increases?

He also dismisses the rise in ice in the Antarctic as the result of global warming producing more snow.  Neat how it all works out.

Harrabin declares we will definitely be getting 2 degrees plus warming and, cue the sad music, the poor will be suffering from extreme weather, they already are apparently…despite there not being an increase in extreme weather.  Don’t let the facts spoil a good story Roger.

Harrabin is quite happy to accept the ‘most scary scenarios’ or at least push them as a possibility despite there being no evidence.

I find Harrabin entirely untrustworthy and unconvincing.  This wasn’t about the science, it wasn’t journalism, it was a pro-climate lobby message.  Nothing new then from him.

BBC’s Six-Year Cover-Up Of Secret ‘Green Propaganda’ Training For Top Executives

• Date: 12/01/14
• David Rose, Mail on Sunday

The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming,  The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.

At the event, in 2006, green activists and scientists – one of whom believes climate change is a bigger danger than global nuclear war  – lectured 28 of the Corporation’s most senior executives.

Why did Miliband lose the election?  Possibly because he didn’t have the right man on side…Nick Robinson for instance, unfortunately put out of action during the election by ill health.

Robinson, starting on the Today programme tomorrow, was a young Conservative but that might have been hard to ascertain if you listened to his BBC outpourings which, to me at least, seemed to lean towards favouring Labour.

It seems I’m not alone in that conclusion.  In the Sunday Times Lynn Barber says ‘It seems to me blindingly obvious from his book that he was much fonder of Ed Miliband than of David Cameron’.

Also….’At one point someone offers Robinson the job of top Labour spin doctor, which they would hardly have done if they didn’t believe he was on their side.’

Robinson replied to this suggestion…’The person who offered it to me certainly thought that I was, not necessarily on their side, but willing to help their side.’

A young Conservative gone native inside the Bubble.

Switched on the radio, first thing I heard was Anna Foster  (around 07:55) worrying that many people believe the Front National in France will get more support.  She didn’t define who those ‘many people’ were of course….let me do it for her….BBC journalists, the Guardian and Muslim agitators.  Why is the BBC completely unconcerned about the ‘worries’ of those who might vote for the Front National….the BBC dismisses them as racist Islamophobes who have no reason to be concerned.

Foster had two Muslim women on to tell us what a living hell their lives were due to Islamophobia….Foster described them merely as ‘French women’ when she closed the discussion….which is odd, as the whole point was that they were ‘Muslim’.

Foster wondered if ‘the anger [in France about the terrorist attacks] will be tapped into to improve the lot of immigrants’.

Wasn’t it immigrants who launched this attack?

A curious slant then by the BBC…again it is the ‘immigrants’ who are the victims, French racism the problem driving the immigrants to terrorism.