Nicky Campbell is having a phone-in about the Daily Mail article that stated the Marxist Ralph Miliband ‘hated Britain’.  (just an aside…Ed Miliband wants to give 16 year olds the vote…and yet he says we must dismiss the youthful, 17 year old, writings of his father in his diary as the foolishness of that youthfulness!)

The same Ralph Miliband who wouldn’t support Labour Party because he thought that Labour would always betray the working class…guess he was right there.

Campbell raises the fact that the Mail in the 1930’s had given Hitler and Mosley’s Blackshirts some support.

Ironic that the Left attack the Mail for denouncing Miliband’s politics….by themselves denouncing Mosley’s politics…doesn’t Mosley have relatives who would be ‘hurt and offended’ by such outrageous ‘smears’?

The BBC itself was more than ready to appease Hitler  and look the other way as he rampaged across Europe.

The BBC went so far as to bar Churchill, ‘The Voice in the Wilderness’, from the airwaves in case he upset Herr Hitler.

Churchill said that the war was the easiest war to have avoided if the Allies had stood up to Hitler’s earliest manoeuvres.

In other words the likes of the BBC ensured that a devastating world war happened.

Lloyd George appeased Hitler…wanting to sign a peace with him…so much so that the Sunday Pictorial, then a mass circulation paper, ran a headline:

‘We Accuse Lloyd George!’

And who can forget the highly influential book ‘The Guilty Men’, published in 1940, which attacked British politicians for their appeasement of Hitler…destroying the reputations of Chamberlain and Baldwin….one of the authors of the book….Labour’s Michael Foot.

And of course there’s Labour’s Oswald Mosley…the leader of the Fascist Blackshirts in Britain….could the Daily Mail criticise his politics now?

And just as the BBC appeased Hitler it now appeases Muslim terrorists…or militants as it likes to call them.

Remember this:

The making of the terror myth

Since September 11 Britain has been warned of the ‘inevitability’ of catastrophic terrorist attack. But has the danger been exaggerated? A major new TV documentary claims that the perceived threat is a politically driven fantasy – and al-Qaida a dark illusion.  (From the Guardian…in 2004)

The faces of that ‘Dark Illusion’ one year later 7/7/2005:

The Guardian was talking about this BBC programme which was a highly political attack on the ‘Neo-Cons'(ironically originally Marxists) and the War on Terror…it tells us that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist:

The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear

‘The nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organisation waiting to strike our societies is an illusion….Wherever one looks for this al-Qaeda organisation the British and Americans are chasing a phantom enemy.’　

In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.

The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.

At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists.

Together they created today’s nightmare vision of an organised terror network.

The Power of Nightmares, broadcast at prime time, which sought to prove that, in the words of its producer, the threat of global terrorism, “is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media”.

Adam Curtis, the film maker was desperate for it to be true, that Al Qaeda didn’t exist..so much so that he would deny it even if a bomb went off…as of course many did, and are doing now:

“If a bomb goes off, the fear I have is that everyone will say, ‘You’re completely wrong,’ even if the incident doesn’t touch my argument. This shows the way we have all become trapped, the way even I have become trapped by a fear that is completely irrational.”

Great that the BBC should think that it can, rather than report the news, seek to alter the news, to make the news itself, by interfering in the political process and to change the course of history by broadcasting its own propaganda.

The Daily Mail prints what is essentially a credible assessment of the effects of Ralph Milibands political beliefs and all hell breaks loose…the BBC broadcasts a highly political intervention in an attempt to actually change events by falsifying facts in the hope that they can the Public’s perceptions who will then pressurise governments to change course.

Nicky Campbell this morning was castigating William Hague for possibly supporting Al Qaeda, that non existent organisation…he asked…

‘Do you acknowledge the strength and danger of the extremist groups?‘

Funny how times change…now the BBC is attacking the politicians for possibly lending support to Al Qaeda rather than for attacking it.

But of course Al Qaeda doesn’t exist…so no problem..how do I know..because the BBC told me it doesn’t…it’s a myth, a phantom, a fantasy, an irrational fear.

 Just like Marxism it seems.

As far as I can tell, and I’ve heard quite a lot from the BBC today on the subject, Ed Miliband has been given an uncritical platform to ‘defend’ his father and to present himself in a manner designed to garner as much sympathy…and very cynically, votes…as possible.  

Miliband’s own article in the Mail was not purely a defence of his Father but a subtle distancing of his own politics from that of his father…somewhat ironic in the circumstances….he complains that the Mail is traducing his father’s beliefs…and then disowns them himself:

‘My father’s strongly Left-wing views are well known, as is the fact that I have pursued a different path and I have a different vision.’

A case of Miliband junior not coming to praise his father but to bury him and his Marxist ‘vision’?

What was the other hypocrisy of Miliband junior?

He claims that…The Daily Mail sometimes claims it stands for the best of British values of decency. But something has really gone wrong when it attacks the family of a politician — any politician — in this way.

But the Mail article was an attack on his politics not ‘the family’, and  Miliband himself cynically brought his father into the politics in his own speeches…

If Ed Miliband wanted his father to be off limits, he should have kept quiet about him

…and his wife into the frame with those photos of the couple kissing for the cameras.

Not only that but he had nothing to say when the BBC et al ran stories investigating his father’s politics when he was running for the leadership of the Labour Party in 2010. Here is the BBC Newsnight programme, dodging Marxism, but giving Ralph a nice little puff. 

He had nothing to say because it was a puff piece moving swiftly over his father’s ‘Marxism’…telling us that it wasn’t really the ‘Bad’ sort.

It is curious that Ed Miliband should be so furious about the Daily Mail article on his father’s beliefs which was headlined:

 The man who hated Britain: Red Ed’s pledge to bring back socialism is a homage to his Marxist father. So what did Miliband Snr really believe in? The answer should disturb everyone who loves this country

Miliband claims that ‘there is no credible argument in the article or evidence from his life which can remotely justify the lurid headline and its accompanying claim that it would ‘disturb everyone who loves this country….build an entire case about him hating our country on an adolescent diary entry is, of course, absurd.’

No ‘credible evidence’? Apart from the fact he was a hardcore Marxist.

Miliband claimed the case is based solely on one diary entry….but of course it isn’t…as said it was based on the well known beliefs and values of his Marxist father.

Miliband’s father may well have appreciated the safety, security, job opportunities and comforts of Britain but he was working to dismantle that and replace it with Communism.

 All in all Miliband’s response was a highly political and manipulative piece that far from defending his father seemed more intent on winning votes.

But let’s have a look at what the BBC doesn’t like to dwell on…probably because much of Marxism actually finds favour in the corridors of the BBC…read on and tell me you disagree.

So what does Marx tell us about his aims and beliefs?　

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Working Men of All Countries, Unite!

Family, religion, morality, nation states, nationality…all to be abolished with the aid of violent revolution by the armed Proletariat.

Would such beliefs and intent  ‘disturb everyone who loves this country’?

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.　

That the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

Marxism is the basis for everything that many in the BBC hold dear as more from the Communist Manifesto makes clear:

Multiculturalism:  The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.

Anti-religious:  But communism is the stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and brings about their disappearance.

The idea that the West is too dominant:  Just as it [Bourgeoisie] has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The horror of the Nation State:   The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.

The radical Marxist agenda behind the Green movement:  The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground – what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

Ralph Miliband always claimed to oppose Stalin’s methods but dodged a close analysis of them….‘he insisted that, whereas the controversy over the nature of the Soviet regime was “obviously of some importance…no conclusive answer to the question has ever been returned, or can be”’

He also dodged the real meaning of Marxism, usng the same trick that Muslims do to avoid the truth about Islam and the meaning of the Quran…claiming:

‘The very term Marxist was a contested category, with no universally accepted criteria by which a Marxist could be defined.’

Interesting though that despite being a Marxist and apparently believing in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat he actually wanted the Dictatorship of the Intellectual:

‘…in his analysis of the role of intellectuals within the Marxist movement, he claimed that the “Leninist” injunction that intellectuals should “serve the people” was, in one sense, unproblematic. However, he argued that within the Marxist movement after Lenin’s death the interpretation of how the people were to be served had been increasingly redefined such that only the party leader, specifically Stalin or Mao, could decide what it actually entailed. The differences between Lenin’s party and those of Stalin or Mao were accordingly ones of degree rather than of quality: “Leninism was a political style adapted … to a particular strategy … Stalinism … made a frightful caricature of the style, and made of the strategy what it willed”.’

Guess old Orwell was right…Four legs bad, two legs good.

I listened to half an hour of the Today programme this morning…it did nothing to dispel the view that the BBC approaches News from a certain viewpoint.

Starting at around 08:00 we had the US government closedown…The BBC gave us Obama’s self serving speech whilst then doing an interview which poured the blame onto the Republicans….no similar questioning of a Democrat…just the Obama theatrics, and more in the following Mardell report..

Then we got onto an interview with David Cameron in which Sarah Montague continually interrupted.

One highlight was when Cameron said the government was putting an extra £27 bn or so into the NHS…Montague interjected with the claim that because of the massive upheavals due to reforms it would feel like a cut.

Well only if people listen to the BBC where we hear day in day out, from presenters as well as guests, that the NHS budget is being cut…..when it is in fact being targeted at priority treatments….with the same or bigger overall budget.

Then we got onto Cameron’s ‘leadership’, called into question, Montague tells us,  because of the vote in Syria…well perhaps only in the BBC’s mind…as far as I can see everything is carrying on as normal with no one calling for Cameron’s head.

No such questions about Miliband’s leadership after the Unions forced him to back down on Falkirk, after his Party forced him to back down on Syria and when his flagship policies on apprenticeships and nationalising the energy companies were torn to shreds…though not by the BBC.

Then onto the Daily Mail’s running of a story about Miliband’s father ‘hating’ Britain…well of course he did.. He was a Marxist.

Perhaps the BBC felt that was too close to home when many people doubt the BBC’s ‘love’ of Britain, the Left in generals ‘Love’ of Britain.　

The default BBC position is that the Mail story is below the belt and wrong.

Orwell, that Fascist, would beg to say different:

George Orwell

The general weakening of the whole British morale that took place during the nineteen-thirties, was the work mostly of the left-wing intelligentsia.

The mentality of the left-wing intelligentsia can be studied in half a dozen weekly and monthly papers. The immediately striking thing about all these papers is their generally negative, querulous attitude, their complete lack at all times of any constructive suggestion. There is little in them except the irresponsible carping of people who live in a world of ideas and never expect to be in a position of power. Another marked characteristic is the emotional shallowness of people who live in a world of ideas and have little contact with physical reality. The really important fact about so many of the English intelligentsia is their severance from the common culture of the country.

In the general patriotism of the country they form a little island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. …it is their duty to snigger at every English institution.

All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British…if the fascist nations judged we were ‘decadent’ and that it was safe to plunge into war, the intellectual sabotage from the Left was partly responsible.

It is clear that the special position of intellectuals in society as purely negative creatures came about because society could not use them, they were useless to a productive nation, and they had not got it in them to see that devotion to one’s country implies ‘for better, for worse’.

A modern nation cannot afford to have a separation of intelligence and patriotism, they will have to come together because it is a fact that we are fighting a war, and a very peculiar kind of war that may make this possible.

All left-wing parties in the highly industrialised countries are at bottom a sham, because they make it their business to fight against something which they do not really wish to destroy. They have international aims, and at the same time they struggle to keep up a standard of life with which those aims are incompatible. We all live by robbing Asiatic coolies, and those of us who are ‘enlightened’ all maintain that those coolies ought to be set free, but our standard of living, and hence our ‘enlightenment’, demands that the robbery shall continue. A humanitarian is always a hypocrite.

The Labour Party has been packing BBC call-ins with its activists judging by some of the very articulate and well rehearsed rhetoric some callers have demonstrated….listen to Michael Thompson from Sale on 5Live Drive at 18:16 and especially at 18:20 when he gets into his stride telling us….’… the IMF advised George Osborne that the austerity measures aren’t working, you see the more people who are unemployed the less they spend on goods and services which leads to more job cuts, especially as we’re a service based economy, something the Tories don’t understand that simple fact.  I mean it’s the consumer who creates the demand for jobs, if less tax for big businesses means, you know, more jobs then we’d be swimming in jobs, the last thing a venture capitalist wants to do is give you a job, and at the end of the day it’s the unemployed who are the forgotten victims and who seem to be blamed and demonised within the wider media when the real causes are a lack of labour demand in a flatlining economy, Britain’s serious lack of labour intensive industries which were sold off in the ’80’s under Thatcher…’

Randomly plucked off the streets by the BBC? Don’t think so.

However that doesn’t seem to be enough for Labour and they are now using groups that claim to be independent but are in fact nothing but Labour Party ‘Fronts’.

Which might or might not be expected but what you wouldn’t expect is for the BBC to present them as honest and independent groups with no political affiliations when they have hard core links to Labour.

The BBC can’t say they didn’t know…if they are going to give this group such a high profile they should have checked it out. 

Trouble is they probably did.

From the Daily Mail:

BBC gives Left the freedom of the airwaves: Radio 4 and 5 Live give pressure group with links to Labour’s radical wing extraordinary on-air platform

No mention was made of any political affiliations, but a cursory look at the group’s directors reveals deep ties to the Labour Party – so much so that a Conservative MP questioned if the group was merely a Labour ‘front’.

Miss Marriott, its campaign director, is a professional Left-wing campaigner and a Labour Party member with links to the radical wing of the party.

Part of the Labour Uncut blogging team, she is also involved with Pragmatic Radicalism, the self-proclaimed ‘New Forum for Labour Ideas’ and reportedly handles Government relations for the Press regulation lobby group Hacked Off.

Another director, Josie Cluer, describes herself as a ‘public sector reformer with fingers in many pies’, including the Labour Women’s Network which exists to get more Labour women elected to public office.

And according to Labour MP Chuka Umunna, the campaign was launched by Matthew McGregor, the man hailed as Barack Obama’s ‘digital attack dog’ in last year’s US presidential election – who has just been recruited for Labour’s 2015 General Election campaign.

The website is very slick and remarkably anonymous, almost as if they didn’t want you to know anything about the group behind it.

Not sure who Jamie ‘with the wobbly eyes’ is but he’s now appeared twice in a couple of days on the BBC….today on ‘Your Call’ (at about 09:10) talking about the work for welfare proposals (or as the BBC says ‘what some people might call slavery’….though only ‘militant’ people would call it that surely?)…..apart from wobbly eyes it seems he has a wobbly backbone when it comes to work….he thinks employers were horrible to him when they wanted him to work outside in the rain and when, shock horror, call the UN Human Rights Rapporteurs, it was cold.

Obviously he’s not keen on the suggestion that he might have to work for his benefits….and nor are any other callers..so far.

I guess it is going to be a long week as the BBC minutely examines every word that the Tories utter for anything that will put the ‘poor and disadvantaged’s’ noses out of joint.

Unfortunately I can’t remember when Jamie appeared last time….Saturday…probably on 5Live?

If anyone knows let me know, I’d be interested to hear again what he said the first time…unfortunately I switched the radio off as I couldn’t stand the whinging any longer.

On 5Live’s Sunday Breakfast the Tory Conference kicked off…..I’m sure the BBC had some positive texts or emails…..but I heard this one read, from ‘Phil’, out at length (08:36):

‘I’m sick of the lie that Labour wrecked the economy when it was Tory voting wideboys in the banks and City accounting firms who dumped all of us so-called hard working people in the bin.

The Tory’s divisive celebrations of Thatcher reminds us the nasty party is back.

The Tory lie that the economic crisis is down to the poor on welfare has become the accepted orthodoxy denying the truth that it was the wrecklessness of the Tory’s rich pals that caused it.’

Good of the BBC to read out what is the new Labour Party ‘line’ of attack…Labour might have been in charge but it was all those Tory bankers what done it.

A little bit of history, context and truth wouldn’t go amiss at the BBC rather than allowing itself to peddle these Labour Party sound bites.

Does Phil mean to say that all those  New Labour slap up prawn cocktail soirées with the bankers and big business were a lie…..Blair, Mandelson and Broon were just teasing?

The BBC’s very own Robert Peston thinks memories are too short:

‘What is striking is the human propensity to forget about previous crises and to assume that a new crisis-free era has arrived.

Here is the central paradox of financial history: we know that there will be harmful banking crises every fifty years or so, and lesser market shocks every twenty or thirty years; but we also know that as years go by without such a shock bankers and investors will become unshakeably convinced that there won’t be a crisis in their lifetimes, and will beigin to take evr more dangerous risks.

The challenge for regulators and politicians, in trying to reduce the incidence and severity of future crises is somehow  or other to ground the optimism of those who make important decisions on markets in a more realistic view of history and the future.’

So yes bankers were one of the culprits but so was Brown and Labour as the head of the System….he reduced that regulation of risk…the famous ‘light touch’……

…and it was Brown who forgot the history lesson when he told us that there would be ‘No more boom and bust’

Because he forgot that lesson he didn’t believe he had to regulate.  And that’s why we’re in this mess now.

It would be handy if the BBC taught its presenters some history …especially when it is their own journalism that has pointed out the fallacy in Labour’s claims to being an economic safe pair of hands.

Even Stephanie Flanders seemed to have forgotten in later years her own take down of Brown’s spendthrift policies and the ragged state of the economy in 2005:

Testing the Miracle

Britain is growing slower than it has in more than a decade. The high street has ground to a halt, and inflation is the highest it has been under Labour.

When we look back, in a few years’ time, at Brown’s economy, will we still see an economic miracle? Or another old-fashioned spending binge that, sooner or later, had to run dry?

The miracle, if there is one, is that we carried on growing. But looking around the country, you see it is a miracle built not on investing, or exporting, but on a miraculous capacity to spend.

The public spending prop

What is left of the miracle economy, if you strip out the cheap imports and the consumer spending? What is left is a lot of public spending. The only part of the economy that has grown faster than spending by all of us the past few years has been spending by the government.

And who can forget these words of wisdom from Labour’s socialist aristocracy:

First of course there’s the most famous one of all from Mandy telling us he was:

“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich“……..the remark that was seen as maxim for Labour’s embrace of free markets.

and then there’s Brown, Chancellor and PM and his ‘Golden Age’ of  Banking:

Brown in 2007: 

I congratulate you Lord Mayor and the City of London on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London….

… recognising your international success is critical to that of Britain’s overall and considering together the things that we must do…enhancing a risk based regulatory approach..maintaining our competitive tax regime, and having cut our main rate of corporation tax to again the lowest in the G8.

So more risk and lower taxes for Big Business…yes…not at all letting the City and Business rip.

Here’s Brown grooming the City in his 2006 Mansion House speech:

My Lord Mayor, Mr Governor, My Lords, Aldermen, Mr Recorder, Sheriffs, ladies and gentlemen.

Let me start by saying what a privilege it is to address this famous and historic dinner, where business, bankers and ministers come together to celebrate London’s strengths and achievements.

London has enjoyed one of its most successful years ever, for which I congratulate all of you here on your leadership skills and entrepreneurship.

Financial services are now 7 per cent of our economy. Financial and business services as much as 10 per cent. A larger share of our economy than they are in any other major economy, contributing £19 billion of net exports to our balance of payments, a success all the more remarkable because while New York and Tokyo rely for business on their large domestic base, London’s international ranking is founded on a large and expanding global market.

Ed Balls, our new City Minister, will work with you to develop publish and then promote a long term strategy for the development of London’s financial services and promoting our unique advantages and assets. We will set a clear ambition to make Britain the location of choice for headquarters and services, including R&D, for even more of the world’s leading companies. 

Mr Lord Mayor ten years ago there were nine separate regulatory bodies for financial services.

To meet the challenge of global markets we created a single unified FSA.

In 2003, just at the time of a previous Mansion House speech, the Worldcom accounting scandal broke. And I will be honest with you, many who advised me including not a few newspapers, favoured a regulatory crackdown.

I believe that we were right not to go down that road which in the United States led to Sarbannes-Oxley, and we were right to build upon our light touch system through the leadership of Sir Callum McCarthy – fair, proportionate, predictable and increasingly risk based.

All very well blaming all those fatcats…but who was in charge of herding them at the time?

Take the week off lads and lasses…I’m 95% certain there is no BBC bias ….Will Hutton in the Guardian has assured me that claims of bias are ridiculous:

BBC attempts to broadcast its findings in as impartial way as possible will be portrayed as yet more evidence of BBC bias, even though the BBC will pack its coverage with lots of sceptical voices, notwithstanding their marginalisation by world science, to try to cover its back.

 Wind farms and solar power….a waste of time…

Professor Mike Hulme has never been too enthusiastic about climate science…or rather with having to get it right…as long as it can be made to support your social and political agenda that’s good enough.

As one of the putative flag wavers for man made climate change, Mike Hulme, until recently head of the Tyndall Centre at the UEA, gave the game away in his book “Why We DisAgree About Climate Change”
The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.
……
Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
…….
We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.
…….
These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’.

He has now left the UEA and works as ‘Professor of Climate and Culture in the Department of Geography in the School of Social Science & Public Policy at King’s College London where I am a member of the Environment, Politics and Development Group. ‘

He tells us that the emphasis on science distracts from resolving political challenges arising from different interests, values and attitudes to risk.

Yeah….that old science just gets in the way of the politics…..the politics of making policies based on the …erm…science of climate change.

So essentially what Hulme is saying is that Policy should be made now based upon…what?…the same methods applied to the Bible?  The Earth was created by a God in 7 days, Adam and Eve, the Garden of Paradise…etc etc?

In other words making it up to suit yourself and your own vested interests.

Hulme makes some revealing comments in this recent podcast (abridged) which attack the IPCC and the use of windfarms and solar panels as the solution to climate change:

These are deeply political challenges…the IPCC has not proved a successful policy framework and the new report will not provide a helpful way to untangle those obstacles and barriers.

My argument is to call for a different framework, one not dependent on science…not on getting the numbers right or the precision correct…a policy of climate pragmatism….recognising a different number of environmental goals rather than reach the ‘great deal’ as the UN tries to achieve by getting 193 countries to agree….the emphasis should be on improving society’s resilience to climate risk, improving air quality…not just CO2,  and the CO2 challenge…away from fossil fuels by using massive public led innovation in renewable technologies to replace fossil fuels…windmills and solar tiles on people’s roofs…it’s not going to get you there.

Presumably, he doesn’t elaborate, Hulme means going nuclear….or perhaps Shale gas…still, not exactly supportive of the government’s( and Ed Miliband’s) windmill and solar policy.

Not sure how Harrabin and Co could ignore such a damning statement from such a prominent player in the climate change debate, such as it is….especially as he had such a close working relationship with him…the Tyndall Centre giving Harrabin £15,000 for his CMEP propaganda project at the BBC.

I can confirm that there has been a ‘Pause’…a pause in BBC journalism for at least 15 years….investigative reporting, intelligent analysis and comment, rigorous questioning of  claimed ‘facts’ have been set aside and in place of which, the new ‘Priesthood’ that is the BBC, has promoted the new ‘Faith’ of Man Made Climate Change…..blasphemers will be ex-communicated or at least shown the door at BBC studios.

On Friday we had the IPCC’s Summary For Policy Makers which was the trigger for an avalanch of pro-AGW propaganda from the BBC…a BBC which doesn’t report or investigate but merely acts as a channel for pro-AGW politicians and green activists to spread their Green Gospel.

On Friday the BBC announced it would broadcast on Tuesday on R4 at 15:30 a ‘Costing The Earth’ programme trailed as a look at climate scepticism….clearly the BBC had this ready to go long before the IPCC released its report…part of a carefully orchestrated campaign and not just thrown together.

This is what Nicky Campbell said about the IPCC’s latest effort….‘This is a hugely, hugely important subject for the planet…this is key… they say it is extremely certain that climate change is due to man.’

I’m guessing Campbell is safely on board the AGW bandwagon.

Roger Harrabin (08:35) on the Today programme (What are his scientific qualifications?) told us:

‘I don’t think there are many climate change sceptics in the scientific world, for instance we’ve been trying in the UK to find a climate sceptic who is a working scientist in this field and we can’t find even one.’

The IPCC says that the ocean is the major heat store…the pause is caused by heat being absorbed by the oceans.

 And this rather odd final interpretation of things where he told us that we are looking at warming even if the graphs don’t show any…that’s the IPCC’s message.

Harrabin it seems would like to airbrush from history all the sceptics and their probing, inconvenient questions about the ‘science’.

Harrabin is clearly on the attack against the climate sceptics…trying to dismiss them as ignorant, unscientific ‘bloggers’ …but as I said…what are his scientific qualifications…isn’t he just a well paid blogger…isn’t that all journalists are after all?

Curious how anyone at all, regardless of qualification, scientist or not, can claim to accept man made climate change whilst if you question the IPCC’s claims you have to have an expert qualifcation…as a ‘climate scientist’…what ever that is.

As for not finding a single sceptical, working scientist in this field in the UK…well that pretty much narrows the field conveniently…why are US or Canadian or Australian or Russian sceptical scientists irrelevant?

And what of ‘in this field’?  What does that mean?  Just how many IPCC scientists are actually specifically ‘climate change’ scientists?

The head of the IPCC is a railway engineer, the famous Lord Stern an economist.

Harrbain is blatantly telling a lie.

Nic Lewis, a mathematician and physicist specialising now in climate has been quoted endlessly recently…on well known blogs and in the press…and yet Harrabin couldn’t find him?

And look…Nic Lewis was an accredited IPCC expert reviewer…..who better to ask about scepticism and climate?

There is a massive amount of scientific doubt about climate change and Harrabin knows that…but seeks to hide it.

In Canada a study indicated that 68% thought the science was not ‘settled’

Only about one in three Alberta earth scientists and engineers believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified, a new poll reported today.

The expert jury is divided, with 26 per cent attributing global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels and 27 per cent blaming other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet.

A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.”

Of course many scientists who have doubts may not feel free to disclose them…it could well be professional suicide and the fact that they are certain to recieve enormous amounts of abuse and threatening messages must also be considered.

Even Harrabin’s old mate at the CRU is scared….and he’s one of the bullies:

Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

and here he is doing that very thing himself, trying to block publication of sceptical science:

‘Phil Jones, director of the CRU, writing to Michael Mann, creator (le mot juste) of the now discredited “hockey stick” graph, about two academics who disagree with him:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Professor Mann on an academic journal foolish enough to publish dissenting views:
“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
Professor Jones’s reply:
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
And you’ll be glad to hear they did!’

Shame Harrabin doesn’t find time to investigate the sceptics claims in the first place and secondly rather than trying to discover why the BBC’s carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign has failed to make the public pro-AGW maybe he should be asking some questions about the tactics and ethics of the Alarmist camp when attacking Sceptics…often demanding they face ‘war crime’ trials or even execution..

Here are a few websites and comments that illustrate the virulent and violent reactions to anyone who expresses scepticism:

This one from a recent article by David Rose in the Daily Mail:

‘Children of MoS reporter should murder him’: vile abuse on Guardian site’

And how about this little troll comment reacting to sceptic comments on a recent article by the world’s least inquiring mind, Geoffrey Lean:

ematter 5 minutes ago

Any more UKIP trolls can “F” OFF!

SITTING on the side-line is NOW tantamount to contributing in killing people!

YOU are just as guilty, if you STAND AND WATCH out planet being RAPED

And more in a similar vein:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-EE9098538277

http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/06/03/execute-skeptics-shock-call-to-action-at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers-shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now/

NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them “not a threat, but a prediction.”

After today’s highly politicised, one sided broadcasting by the BBC now might be the time to consider legal action against the BBC, individual journalists, Tony Hall and the BBC Trust for a blatant breach of its charter obligations…obligations enshrined in law.

The IPCC released its summary of the Fifth Assessment Report on climate change.

The BBC released a torrent of  ‘on message’ propaganda on behalf of the IPCC in what could be one of the most shameless abuses of power and betrayal of its ethos that the BBC has so far indulged itself in.

This wasn’t reporting, there was no debate, there was no critical analysis, just blanket coverage and acceptance of everything the IPCC said.  We had scientist after scientist brought in to push the same line…the BBC presenters were there merely to keep the flow going without pause and to applaud when necessary.

During the day I know of only two sceptics who were brought in…one was Andrew Montford, aka Bishop HIll who was given a couple of minutes on Sheila Fogarty’s show and then Professor Bob Carter on 5Live Drive (17:45)….but just listen to the tone of the presenter in contrast to the obsequious, deferential treatment pro-AGW scientists or advocates received.

Carter was told that he possessed a ‘dangerous state of mind’ ….and asked ‘Don’t you worry about the future’.

From that you can see that the presenter was not there to listen and weigh up information, he had already made up his own mind…the world is in danger….and sceptics are ‘deniers’.

Consider a scenario…one where Roger Harrabin admits he is a convinced socialist and member of the Labour Party.  He admits he has tried for years to convince people that Labour  policies are the only viable course available for the country.

Imagine he succeeds in persuading the BBC to agree that he is correct and that he can set up an organisation that runs seminars designed to persuade fellow journalists that Labour policies are credible and that not only should they shape their programmes to reflect those policies in a positive light but that they should deny other political parties any airtime to debate their policies.

You don’t have to imagine that…because that is precisley how the BBC has proceeded to ‘report’ on climate change.

And Roger Harrabin has been at the centre of that ‘fix’.

If it had been a political party which had been ‘adopted’ by Harrabin and its policies openly and relentlessly promoted by the BBC you might imagine the outcry.

And yet the very same abuse of the BBC’s dominant position in broadcasting and on the web has gone almost unnoticed, at least by the people who have the power to do something about it.

But of course many of them also have vested interests in promoting climate change.

Which is why the only recourse is legal action against the BBC for breaching its legal obligations.

Perhaps the GWPF would step up and take the BBC on?

Reference…Woman’s Hour (10:11)   Woman’s Hour discusses how scientists overblow their research with dramatic claims and how science  journalists often don’t understand the science they are reporting on.

The Great Global Warming Swindle continues…broadcast every week on the BBC at varying times on every channel and medium.

The BBC are picking up the pace in pushing the man made global warming angle.

We are getting puff pieces that continue the alarmist scare mongering as well as subtly trying to undermine the sceptics and the perception, the very real perception, that global warming has stopped.

Matt McGrath is stepping successfully into Richard Black’s rather dodgy shoes with this attack on sceptics:

Climate sceptics claim warming pause backs their view

With quotes like these given prominence you know exactly what McGrath’s intentions are:

Some of what the sceptics are saying is either wishful thinking or totally dishonest”   Prof Jean-Pascal van Ypersele IPCC

 

Bart Verheggen is an atmospheric scientist and blogger who supports the mainstream view of global warming. He said that sceptics have discouraged an open scientific debate.

“When scientists start to notice that their science is being distorted in public by these people who say they are the champions of the scientific method, that could make mainstream researchers more defensive.

“Scientists probably think twice now about writing things down. They probably think twice about how this could be twisted by contrarians.”

McGrath tells us that ‘There are many different shades of opinion in the sceptical orbit.’

But he doesn’t give any of them any credence….and he doesn’t ask similar questions of the supporters of AGW….for instance those who don’t care about the science but see it purely as an opportunity to push for more Socialism and State control….as well as handing out billions to third world countries.  McGrath isn’t interested in the vested interests of those, including the scientists and politicians, who have a great deal at stake in having AGW ‘confirmed’.

David Shukman follows on faithfully on the same path… this morning on the Today programme (08:41) when a sleight of hand was played with the evidence…or lack of evidence for global warming and the causes of the ‘pause’.

We hear that in the last 100 years the temperature of the oceans has been increasing….according to the Clams as scientists have recently discovered.

Helpful coincidence…the IPCC is trying to explain away the ‘pause’ in global warming..and can’t…but they have come up with a guess that they have all agreed to agree on…to present a common front, a consensus….that the oceans are absorbing the heat and causing a ‘slowdown’ in temperature rises…..and in a timely intervention, miraculously the Clams ‘prove’ it.

Great how Shukman feeds questions to his scientist stooge, knowing the answers already….

Do scientists exaggerate?  No! Climate scientists don’t exaggerate…they are just very, very concerned about the climate….and that concern is for the future…you may be cold now…but…you’re going to fry in 50 years time….act now!

Is there a pause in global warming?  No! You may be cold but someone somewhere is warm and getting warmer…oh yes you may get records that buck the trend for a few years but that doesn’t mean that the globe as a whole is not warming.

Really?  Didn’t the great IPCC itself admit that warming had stalled?

The IPCC has itself released a tricky bit of alarmist propaganda…designed not only to frighten us but to try to undermine any scepticism based on cooler temperatures.

IPCC report: Britain could cool if Gulf Stream slows

Britain’s climate could get cooler over the next 80 years, a major UN report on global warming is to suggest.

It’s a fantastic con trick….if temperatures go up they’ll say we were wrong on the time scale maybe…but we were right about global warming…

and if temperatures go down…they say…look, it’s caused by global warming.

It’s a win win for the IPCC what ever the temperature is.