David Rose in the Mail on Sunday writes a very useful piece on the relationship between the BBC and the warmist community, spelling out how closely knit the two had become.

There is nothing ,much new to those who have been following the climaye change issue closely but, as one of our forum members puts it, the biggest-selling Sunday fingers BBC as being dishonestly, systematically, intentionally, knowingly, ruthlessly, implacably biased against global warming sceptics.

One really does wonder how much further the BBC can go, now that the tide is turning against it. To come shortly is Booker's pamphlet for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, on BBC bias, which will also get some MSM coverage, further reinforcing how untrustworthy the BBC has become.

View full article here

I hope you are correct, Richard, in your analysis. My feeling is that these monsters take a long time to die and in their death throes they can still inflict much damage. To ensure they can't hurt us they must be crushed, and I hope that people like you and other bloggers such as WitteringsfromWitney and TheBoilingFrog, and the more specialist blogs such as Wattsupwiththat and Bishopshill, together with the few proper journalists such as Christopher Booker and James Delingpole, will continue battling against these entities (bbc, guardian, UEA CRU etc) until they cease to exist. They and their treasonous mouthpieces, such as Mr Huhne, need to be completely destroyed for what they have perpetrated on us.

Yay… Huzzar… Whoop whoop….

No more windmills then?

Oh.

I have met with many politicians and I do not believe they are stupid. Why, then, I ask myself, do they do and say so many stupid things?

As an example, our Canadian Prime Minister is on record, from many years ago, as saying The Global Warming Scam was just that, an excuse to shovel money out the window and into the pockets of friendly groups. You won't catch him saying that now; in public, he will make a tepid acknowledgement to AGW. But by now, the Lysenkoist lie has so taken control of the body politic and no one dare stand out and call BS.

Now he's an intelligent and strong man. For those lesser politicians, who think they are being develish clever, what, by being a third rate Macchiavelian and deceiving people as to their true thoughts; they get to the point where they foresake having any thoughts and opinions, critical or otherwise, about any issue. For them, all principal is lost, their game is to placate the noisiest or richest interests to gain their support, or avoid their opposition.

And often it is this latter motive that drives them.

John in Cheshire,

I too hope Richard is correct. He does rush to judgement I find when it's a case o calling game over. I've still yet to see Barosso unemployed

Willis Eschenbach has called out Phil Jones as a serial liar in an open letter on WUWT. It is an authoritative letter that shreds Phil Jones' reputation and leaves him without even the customary fig leaf. In fact the letter is a blooming masterpiece, well worth a read.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/a ... e-uea-cru/

James Murdoch was the big global warming believer at The Sun-Times-Sunday Times- NoW and Sky News.
This is one of the few msm outlets which can pressure The BBC to be seen to reporting what people are getting there.
But if The Mail picks up on The Mail On Sunday story, if others follow, if blogs link to it and to Dr North's 'Gone Forever' Post, if Cranmer gets the church bloggers and others on to it, if David Davis does (as he says he will) call for an investigation of the BBC over this.......then we can see change.
Imagine a world in which BBC News and current affairs were on our side ? A BBC interviewing DR North as a matter of kneejerk routine on the EU, energy policy, MoD, agricultural matters ?
Dr North hits the nail on the head.
It is about authority. The BBC and The Government have a crisis of their own making. They have thrown their Authority away over this IF people press home the issue.
Never forget The BBC always plead INDEPENDENCE as their bottomline.
The Culture and Media Minister (and Department) always run to BBC Independence as the kneejerk reason they are powerless to interfere (unless of course they really want to interfere).
The fact the BBC threw its independence away, ordered staff to take orders from a non BBC body. This is serious ! The MD Mark Thompson may have to go along with other senior managers. Guardian warmists to a man and woman.

I instigated a bit of as discussion on WUWT about getting the message out; basically we were discussing that perhaps if a team of scientists packaged the most important blog posts into press statements and circulated them to a list of journalists, these stories would get legs faster. It would be really simple to do.

Press releases, even better a press conference as near as possible to the main national newspapers, news agency (PA News, AP News, Reuters), ITN, Channel 4 News, Channel 5 News, ITN News - but also RT News, Al Jazeera, all the foreign press (China, Japan, US, French, German, Italian, African, Brazilian, Arabic, Egyptian, Libyan, Norwegian, Swedish, UAE etc), a few celebs if possible, as many MPs as possible, demanding to know why the BBC lied in an inveterate manner and is now discredited and untrustworthy on science and factual programming ?
There are people out there in other news organisations who would love to kick the BBC.
Say the BBC are banned from The Press Conference.
Make the BBC's dishonesty and lack of credibility on scientific matters the story.
They get £145 a year from each household.
It is only the existential threat which will get them to 'repent' and reverse the brainwashing.
This is where hiring a publicist in London is worth the money.
But regardless IF the BBC is being discussed in a negative light on other news TV stations, they will have to react.
The problem comes when people complain to the BBC about the BBC. The BBC will not reform itself nor put itself into liquidation. It only ever changes in response to an external pressure.

Yes the game is over ... but it's like radioactivity - it has a half-life. You get this in Monopoly ... when a skilled player makes a breakthrough, you can be early into the game and it can have many hours to run but, as far as the outcome goes, it is settled. In both the EU and global warming, the "game" requires a consistent momentum. Once that it lost, you know the game is over. It still has to run through the motions, as people are not going to walk away from their paychecks, and the fat lady has yet to sing, but the outcome is now settled. They are both declining assets.

We are dealing with complex phenomena, and even to this day I am not sure of the correct label. I don't think stupidity can be ruled out ... I have met many stupid politicians, and the stupid are as well represented in this fraternity as elsewhere. But whether this is the dominant driver is moot. I suppose there is such thing as corporate or institutional stupidity, where the individual assumes the characteristics (and the IQ) of the body for which he works ... something like crowd psychology, where even a group of intelligent people act to the lowest common denominator.

Perhaps, though, it is that stupidity has a special reach - or special effect - within a political environment ... a place where the stupid may prosper, and intelligence is a handicap. We all have a bit of "stupid" in us, and politics may allow it to reach its full potential.

It's like religion and belief in God, no logical argument will convince the believer otherwise and it's a waste of time trying?

A baptised atheist the only thing I am certain of is that I am!

Yet they still want to take our money to fund their antics.

Words fail me....

£1 billion of UK aid to fight climate change in Africa

Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, is due to announce details of a foreign aid package ahead of government talks at a United Nation's summit on climate change in Durban, South Africa, which start this week.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... frica.html

The BBC and broken Hockey Stick?

In March 2006 the BBC aired a program called Meltdown, (Youtube here) where the presenter posed as a mildly sceptical individual, trying to resolve the arguments for and against man-made climate change. The culmination of the program was the hockey stick graph, with the intention to show clear and unprecedented ‘dangerous’ climate change and that previous warm periods like the Medieval Warm Period were minimised.

The fact that the ‘hockey stick’ had been discredited seems lost on the BBC, and they go to a scientist very clearly on one side of the debate to explain it to the viewer. No mention of the controversy, no mention of McIntyre & McKitrick’s papers and in fact the BBC producer is telling Briffa what he must do to convey the message of the program, to discredit sceptical ideas and convince the viewer of the consensus scientific arguments.

Hi Keith, [Briffa]
Good to talk to you this morning. Just a few thoughts to reiterate what we’re hoping to get out of filming tomorrow.

1) Your interview appears at a crucial point in the film. Up until now our presenter (Paul Rose, he’ll be there tomorrow) has followed two conflicting thoughts. On the one hand he’s understood that the world is currently getting warmer.

But on the other he’s discovered lots of historical stories (the Bronze Age, the MWP, the LIA) which tell him that climate changes naturally all the time. In trying to resolve this paradox he’s come across this thing called the hockey stick curve, and he’s come to you to explain it to him.

2) Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is – the present
warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that.

This is a very bigmoment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global
warming.

3) The hockey stick curve shows that what Paul thought were big climate events (the Bronze Age maximum, the MWP, the LIA) actually when looked at in a global context weren’t quite as dramatic as he thought. They’re there, but they are nothing like as sudden or big.

4) Paul can question you on things like: How reliable is the hockey stick curve? How do you work out past climate (cue for you to talk about proxies)? What drives all the “natural”
fluctations in climate (this can be answered in very broad terms eg it’s down to changes in the sun’s output, volcanoes etc)

5) In terms of filming my first choice is to do it as a projection in Zicer, where you show the Mann curve, then flick up as many other ones as you think are important (within reason!) and elaborate the point that what’s happening now is unprecedented compared to these historic records. In my ideal world, you walk right up to the projector image and
point things out on the screen, with parts of the projected image falling on your heads and shoulders. Stills of tree rings or anything else climate related eg ice cores, corals,
would also work as powerpoints, because you could talk about them as egs of proxies.

Hopefully this makes it clear what I’m trying to achieve.” (email 1683)

Yea I think I get what they wanted to convey

lots and lots more on this post about the BBC

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/c ... t-the-bbc/