MORE ON PETER THOMSON….

On Monday, I posted about BBC The World editor Peter Thomson, who it turns out, is secretary of the fervent climate change group the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ). What actually does this mean? Well for starters, according to the SEJ website, he’s very keen on pushing, as well as his own organisation’s climate change guide, another publication that seeks to influence and underpin journalists everywhere. It’s called the CRED Guide: The Psychology of Climate Change Communication, published by the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions at Columbia University. CRED was established back in 2004 with a grant from the US National Science Foundation (another fervent warmist institution). Its master work is a truly terrifying document in terms of its ambitions in brainwashing and the patronising way it regards the public and – especially – non-believers in their religion.

For example, let’s start with how CRED suggests dealing with non-believers. It found that, stubbornly, despite the barrage of AGW publicity, people in the US are not convinced that it is something that affects them. So here’s what to do:

To counteract this problem, an effective communicator should highlight the current impacts of climate change on regions within the US. Research suggests that it may be more effective to frame climate change with local examples in addition to national examples. For example, references to droughts in the Southwest may resonate more with US audiences than talking about droughts in Africa. Similarly, climate change becomes a more personal threat to a New Yorker when hearing how New York City’s subway system will suffer as the result of a rise in sea level compared to hearing about the effect of a sea level rise in Bangladesh.

In effect, let’s make it up, never let the facts get in the way of a good story, and let’s scare them all to death. Note, especially, the scientific nonsense: the chance of the New York subway being inundated on current evidence of sea level rises is next to zero.

CRED’s pearls of wisdom continue:

Because such extreme weather events are vivid, dramatic,and easily understood, especially to the locals who suffer through them, they provide effective frames for the potential impacts of future climate change. The numerous examples of extreme events that may occur in a given year provide recurring “teachable moments” communicators can use to relate climate change to the experience of a local audience.

I’d love to go on. The whole publication is shot through with such alarmist, non-scientific nonsense. It truly is a textbook in propaganda. But this is a platform where brevity counts, so I will leave it there and recommend you to read it.

So what does that tell us about Peter Thomson? Presumably, as SEJ secretary, he practises what he preaches and is engaged in a crusade within the BBC and on a wider stage to implement what CRED suggests. That’s why people in general take office in such organisations. In so doing, Mr Thomson, I would submit, is acting well outside the normal accepted rules of conflict of interest. There is no consensus on “climate change’ yet he is pushing very hard that there is, and not only that, actively conspiring to persuade journalists throughout the world to say that there is.

The evidence of his campaign is not hard to find, it’s there in the deluge of ‘climate change’ claptrap that pours out of the BBC every single hour. Such as this New Year’s Eve propaganda-fest from our friend Richard Black in which he assesses (or rather, reflects gloomily about) the way forward after Copenhagen.

We know from the Harmless Sky blog that the BBC long since took a high-level decision to support the ideas of the kind advocated by CRED. Is that the result of the work of Mr Thomson and his ilk?

On that rather sobering note, I wish all Biased-BBC readers who wade through our postings a Happy New Year!

Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to MORE ON PETER THOMSON….

  1. Jack Bauer says:

    it may be more effective to frame climate change with local examples in addition to national examples. For example, references to droughts in the Southwest may resonate more with US audiences than talking about droughts in Africa.

    So the Warm Mongering Thompson WANTS to use transient “weather” patterns to “prove” a whole planet climate scare on man-made Global Warming.

    Oh — but how about the RECORD FRACKIN’ COLD WEATHER?? Ah, well, that’s to be ignored. Or better still, cold weather also = man-made global warming.

    It’s cold? Global warming. It’s hot? Global warming. It’s wet? Global warming. It’s dry? Global warming. Indigestion? Global warming.

    These people aree truly NUTS. And not just because they are pushing their lies, but because they seriously expect people to ignore the evidence of their own eyes and believe a non-science clown like Peter Thompson.

       0 likes

  2. DP111 says:

    How a state funded broadcaster, with a directive to objectivity, became the  propagandist arm of the marxist collective, will be an object lesson for future historians.

       0 likes

  3. DP111 says:

    k

    There had to be other aspects to this AGW scam apart from money, else it would never have got so far. For a start it had to have political objectives, over and above financial gain. In fact the West was going to lose financially, therefore there had to be political objectives.

    1.  First it was a matter of money. Huge amounts of money, looted from the middle-income taxpayer in the West, under the guise of issuing certificates in a false commodity – CO2, to be financed via ever increasing energy bills.

    2. To supra-national governments such as the EU, it provided an excellent opportunity to control all industry, agriculture and transport from Brussels.  It would be a lock on the Lisbon treaty that no future nationalist European government could break.

    It was also an opportunity for the EU to extend its reach globally – PM Brown could hardly utter a sentence without “global” this or that cropping up.

    3. To national governments in the West, it provided an opportunity to exercise control over their own people far beyond what they normally could.

    4. To the Left and socialists, in government or otherwise, AGW was the ideal vehicle to advance the start of global government. The fact that capitalists were to financially gain, was a small price to pay, and in any case, would be dealt with later. In a global government, there would be no place to run and hide.

    5. A global government would also be the vehicle by which local governments could be controlled via money to its leaders, particularly in Africa, where a rapidly rising population and resulting food shortages, could lead to huge movements of population to the West.

    COP- 15 at Copenhagen was to be the start by which AGW policy, with its lock hold on all uses of energy in industry, agriculture and transport, was to be implemented globally. This would be a global government in all but name.

    Too much is at stake, which has nothing to do with climate, for it to be given up.

       0 likes

  4. Atheist Ranter says:

    Surely someone out there with knowledge of law can take this bastard to court, get him sacked, get him hung or whatever.  He is living on taxes I have been forced to pay (“demanding money with menaces” – pay your tax or go to prison)

    Lying bastard, I hope he hurts himself, badly…

       1 likes

  5. John Horne Tooke says:

    If you want to see real science see this.

    Not much in it for politicians who want to tax the hell out of the ordinary person – how do you tax clouds?

       1 likes

  6. John Anderson says:

    While Borders bokshops were running closing-down sales I boght a few books cheap – including Nigel Lawson’s short summary of arguments against the whole AGW scam.   Half-way through so far – and enjoying every page,  the basis of much of his argument is the economic madness of what Brown et al propose. 

    He deals with all the arguments in very condensed form,  so his book seems a useful summary. Lawson was clear that there was no real chance of an all-encompassing deal that satisfied the nutters (eg Brown and the EU),  the US,  China and India,  and the grasping developing countries out for another big chunk of our money.

    And Copenhagen proved him right.

    But there is a longt haul ahead to stop all this rubbish.  Meanwhile Blair and Brown have already committed the UK,  by law,  to ridiculous targets.

       1 likes

    • Umbongo says:

      JA

      Don’t forget that the official “opposition” is fully behind the whole AGW lunacy.  The Conservatives voted with the government to put through this nonsense.

         1 likes

    • Atheist Ranter says:

      Surely a new government can change the law??  If they have any balls at all

         1 likes

  7. John Anderson says:

    I found that Nigel Lawson’s whole approach is simply the application of common sense, by an ex-journalist,  economist and a very senior and capable Minister under Thatcher. 

    Yet he seems to be entirely out of step with current Tory leadership.  Who are led into stupidity by the likes of Zac Goldsmith,  my local Tory candidate who won’t get my vote.

       1 likes

  8. John R Smith says:

    If a senior Beeboid was appointed to a top role in the Tory party they’d sack him for conflict of intersest etc. I suppose its possible that the same might happen if a Beeboid was promted to a senior Liebore Party role.

    Given the highly polical nature of the climate debate, how is this any different? Why is he still employed by the bBBC?

       1 likes