21 replies to this topic

[Professor Buzzkill]

http://www.spectator...-you-disgusted/

http://wattsupwithth...l-not-be-named/

Quote

So who were all these ‘best scientific experts’ who did so much to shape the BBC’s climate policy (and by extension, one fears, government policy too…)? Well, two were from Greenpeace; one was from Stop Climate Chaos; one was a CO2 reduction expert from BP; one was from Npower Renewables; one came from the left-leaning New Economics Foundation… Only five of those present could, in any way, be considered scientists with disciplines even vaguely relevant to ‘climate change’. And of these, every one had a track record of climate alarmism. No wonder the BBC tried so hard to keep the list of 28 a secret. Its claim that its policy change was based on the ‘best scientific’ expertise turns out to have been a massive lie.

The BBC claimed a consensus in 2006, by inviting 28 alarmist activists with a vested interest in AGW to shape the company climate policy and claimed them to be the "best scientific experts" in the field.

They then decided, on the advice of these activists to only show pro AGW view points on the BBC while investing heavily in green technology (an investment that backfired as noone took the bait).

When did the BBC decide that they should choose to manipulate global markets instead of providing unbiased news items?

I remember a BBC item (3-4 years back) which claimed that all asian glaciers will be gone by 2035. I am still waiting for a correction annoucement from the BBC.

[Hilander]

People/organizations that lie usually never stop trying to cover up the lie.  How you'll believe them in the future remains to be seen.  I think there is enough evidence for global warming that nothing needs to be made up.  Give us the truth the world can handle it.

[spud the mackem]

The BBC has a reputation of being honest and truthfull, and now you're saying that they are lying, ok. Well if they are lying please indicate who  you  CAN trust to give fair,honest and true accounts.We are adult enough to Not be lied to,so why are they doing it,what is to be gained by them lying ?.

[Professor Buzzkill]

spud the mackem, on 23 November 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

The BBC has a reputation of being honest and truthfull, and now you're saying that they are lying, ok. Well if they are lying please indicate who  you  CAN trust to give fair,honest and true accounts.We are adult enough to Not be lied to,so why are they doing it,what is to be gained by them lying ?.

The motive appears to be greed. Their pension fund was invested heavily in green technology so it would be to their advantage to promote AGW fears which can be "solved" with green technology.

If you really think the BBC doesn't lie, look at the Jimmy Savile affair

[Little Fish]

the bbc is the establishment's mouthpiece, global warming is being pushed by the establishment, it did not come from grass roots activism. follow "global warming" to it's logical conclusion and you get the biggest flow of wealth transfer up to the establishment class since tax was invented.

why do people still trust the bbc, did we all forget the andrew gilligan/david kelly affair?

and here is the secret list, you won't find it in any establishment media outlet:

http://wattsupwithth...-is-now-public/

[Little Fish]

Hilander, on 22 November 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

People/organizations that lie usually never stop trying to cover up the lie.  How you'll believe them in the future remains to be seen.  I think there is enough evidence for global warming that nothing needs to be made up.  Give us the truth the world can handle it.

people (and the bbc) do not lie to protect sensitivities - people lie to hide the truth. the truth is that there is no evidence that mankind is causing global warming, many people can't handle that truth because they have invested too much of their emotional and spiritual being in global warming and man being the cause. that is why some get nasty when it is pointed out that there is no evidence man is changing the climate in any significant way - they irrationally feel it is a personal attack because they have connected their emotional being to it. the film clockwork orange explores this brainwashing very well. if you remember the film the guy is conditioned to produce an emotional response when Wagner is played, this is done by playing the music at the same time as showing traumatising images over a long period of time, then when he is released he freaks out when he hears Wagner as it triggers the emotional response. this is what has been happening for decades with global warming and the bbc is part of it. there are a lot of truths in that film which is why the establishment banned it.

Edited by Little Fish, 23 November 2012 - 09:04 AM.

[Little Fish]

spud the mackem, on 23 November 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

The BBC has a reputation of being honest and truthfull

only the bbc say that, and they say it over and over and over...

Quote

Well if they are lying please indicate who  you  CAN trust to give fair,honest and true accounts.We are adult enough to Not be lied to,so why are they doing it,what is to be gained by them lying ?.

what can be gained? control, money and power, as usual. they are not independent. the people that run the bbc are appointed by the government, it is not a private organisation. look at the gilligan/kelly affair, they were not allowed to tell the truth and they paid the price.

Edited by Little Fish, 23 November 2012 - 09:11 AM.

[Cybele]

How reputable is "The Spectator"? I'm not familiar with British publications, but this one doesn't seem particularly impartial or fair.

A quote from the article's author, in his wikipedia page:

In response to Nurse's question as to whether he had read any peer-reviewed papers, he maintained that as a journalist "it is not my job" to read peer reviewed papers, but be "an interpreter of interpretations"

That's generally not a good sign that someone understands the evidence when it comes to science.

Edited by Cybele, 23 November 2012 - 08:24 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

Lets just say that James Delingpole is a well know right wing fruit cake who has been abusing scientists for quite some time at this stage



Would be funny if it all wasn't so tragically misdirected.

PS - before you accuse me of attacking the messenger, isn't that exactly what James Delingpole is indulging in here.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 23 November 2012 - 09:30 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

This is to funny to ignore, but I am only putting it up for personal amusement;



http://crunkfish.wor...gpole-for-real/

Br Cornelius

[Babe Ruth]

The BBC is not really different than any of the mainstream media in that they advance some perverse agenda at the expensive of fair and balanced news reporting.  From the american perspective there used to be a difference between BBC and any of the american mainstream media, but not anymore.

[Br Cornelius]

Balanced news reporting from the BBC would require a 20:1 ratio of reporting on climate science.
The idea of a 1:1 split would be to abuse the concept of representative and fair reporting.

This is the essential false premise of Delinglpole, that fairness equates to equal coverage - when nothing could be further from the truth.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 24 November 2012 - 04:00 PM.

[Little Fish]

why did the BBC, A PUBLIC INSTITUTION,  REFUSE TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC to know about this list of advisors. going through the secret list of advisors, it is clear there is a conspiracy here to spin an agenda, it is not journalism, it is being used as a media outlet for NGO propagandists.

the list:
http://wattsupwithth...-is-now-public/

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 24 November 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Balanced news reporting from the BBC would require a 20:1 ratio of reporting on climate science.

and yet the ratio of the bbc's advisors who support and do not support the climate change fatalist dogma is 20 : ZERO

Quote

The idea of a 1:1 split would be to abuse the concept of representative and fair reporting.

only 5 of their 30 advisors could be considered scientists, the other 90% of their advisors are advocates and activists.

Quote

This is the essential false premise of Delinglpole, that fairness equates to equal coverage

there can be no fairness in the bbc's reporting when their advisors are 90% activists and 10% warmist scientists, who spend their energies censoring anything that threatens their agendas. it should be clear this a scandal since the BBC have spent a huge amount of money to suppress the list.

[Cybele]

Little Fish, on 24 November 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

why did the BBC, A PUBLIC INSTITUTION,  REFUSE TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC to know about this list of advisors. going through the secret list of advisors, it is clear there is a conspiracy here to spin an agenda, it is not journalism, it is being used as a media outlet for NGO propagandists.

the list:
http://wattsupwithth...-is-now-public/

Has this been covered by a less politically motivated and obviously biased news source (which seems to be doing the exact same thing you accuse the BBC of doing)?

Edited by Cybele, 24 November 2012 - 08:27 PM.