Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Professor Buzzkill

BBC decieved the Nation

24 posts in this topic

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/8758121/heres-a-bbc-scandal-that-should-really-make-you-disgusted/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/10/the-secret-28-who-made-bbc-green-will-not-be-named/

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The BBC has a reputation of being honest and truthfull
only the bbc say that, and they say it over and over and over...
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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :tu:

[media=]

[/media]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this explains why the bbc ignored and did not report the climategate story when it became news in 2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The claims of bias are grossly overstated and the figure of 19:1 in reporting is easily met when you look at it with an unbiased eye;

http://www.bbc.co.uk...mate_issue.html

The claim that Climategate was not reported by the BBC shows a total amnesia for what actually happened. It was extensively reported on in the BBC and especially on Newsnight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b01nl8gm

Newsnight is the flagship News program of the BBC and has repeatedly allowed Nigel Lawson to espouse openly climate scepticism to the public;

[media=]

[/media]

Maybe your real complaint is that they do not afford equal weight to the arguments of climate sceptics, and they do not offer a mouthpiece to Oil industry think-tanks peddling pseudoscience. As I said earlier that would really represent a gross bias in coverage.

This is just pathetic straw clutching exercise by people who have run out of arguments.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The claim that Climategate was not reported by the BBC shows a total amnesia for what actually happened.

I never claimed the bbc never reported climategate, read what i said again.

the bbc ignored climategate WHEN it happened. it took them months to finally report on it, despite having been sent the emails.

it was a big news story across the blogs and other news outlets, but the bbc "news" organisation ignored it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong again, reporting from the time of Climate gate on the BBC;

You should stop reading all your information from biased sources.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From BBC Newsnight 21/11/09;

Little Fish - I don't know which country you come from but you seem to be totally ignorant of what happened in the UK at the time.

I am British and remember it all in detail.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that the BBC has been shown to be far from unbiased in its reporting of science with a tendency to give excessive weight to fringe scientific views such as MMR-autism and Climate skeptism;

http://www.google.co...O89KZNk_vPbGpQQ

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From BBC Newsnight 21/11/09;
date says that show aired 23rd November. the story swept around the web on 19th November. newsnight is not prime time, it is broadcast close to midnight. bbc have a 24 hour news channel, prime time news broadcast and radio, they say 24 hours is a long time in a news cycle, but where was their reporting when the emails were released on the 19th. the newsnight clip however is a perfect example of spin, they initially frame the scandal as a theft of emails, when they get to the content they frame it as,

"Mike's nature TRICK to hide the decline"

at the 1:20 mark in the video, see how their graphic and commentary misled the sleepy viewer.

when the real story was:

"Mike's nature trick to HIDE the decline"

where were their probing questions - what do you mean by hide? what were you hiding? should a scientist be hiding data? what does decline refer to? instrumental temperatures? a decline in tree proxy temperatures since 1960? but no, the bbc do a magicians sleight of hand.

Little Fish - I don't know which country you come from but you seem to be totally ignorant of what happened in the UK at the time. I am British and remember it all in detail.
I was reading those emails on the 19th nov when they were released, and i can tell you the bbc were late in reporting it, and when they did they were spinning it.

given that the bbc's climate expert advisory panel was full of advocates and activists, it is no wonder the public was misinformed and misdirected, but it's all, to quote Michael Mann, "for the cause" isn't it.

Edited by Little Fish
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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.

The BBC has been like that since today Blair hand picked the board.

Its anti-Christain, pro-liberal, pro-socialist and pro-tree hugger. Its biased amd lies about anybody and anything that doesnt fit into its agenda. I even remember some presenters on it glorifying the London Riots.

Its time it got privitsed.

I personally think the media, BBC (Saville) and New Corp controversies are the Tories way of cleaning out the filth who are targeting the population with propaganda. He needs to wait to just before the next elections and then send the senior members of the Labour Party to the Hague for war crimes.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.