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?
I couldn’t agree more. it’s been outrageous and is way beyond a joke. Even by their usual appalling standards this has reached a new level. It has to be stopped somehow. They even had the audacity to wheel out Chris Hune on newsnight just now to give us his exulted view and sermon and of course he Wasted no time in painting George Osbourne as a denier. He did not explicitly use that term but the inference was clearly there in my opinion.
It is a measure of the BBC’s arrogance that Hunhe is allowed to spout his views. The man is discredited.
The BBC does often appear a bit blinkered as to who it associates with (or deploys on their behalf).
Odd strategy, bringing in a person still very damaged goods in the public mind, especially to push a view they like.
It backfired with has last Newsnight outing when his self-serving suited their agenda; I wonder if the couple of hundred who now watch Mr. Katz’ melting iceberg of a show were any more persuaded this time?
It beggars belief that criminals and liars of the Huhne/Alastair Campbell ilk are given airtime at all!
The law or ethics don’t apply to polticos (David Laws anyone?)
But strangely old hands in the entertainment scene (love em or loathe them) like Freddie Starr, Dave Lee Travis and Rolf Harris are banished from our screens without yet being found guilty.
Meanwhile previously sacked twats like Richard Bacon go from strength to strength…
I could add Jim Davidson to that list as well, banished long before Yewtree for being too right wing….
At least framing elderly white celebs takes our minds off “Asian” grooming.
Huhne is a victim of the Evil (Murdoch) Empire – I thought everyone (well, every BBC listener) would know that by now.
It’s part of his rehabilitation. A lot of criminals tend to reoffend in the first 12 months after release from PRISON.
The only “deniers” are the BBC and the Global Warming alarmists. They are in total denial of the facts.
Exactly. Any other scientific hypothesis would have been trashed by now. Instead all they’re doing is propping it up with another one (deep ocean warming).
Had this been a right wing-sponsored scam the BBC would have been having a field day – every day – for years. The contradictions this half-baked, politically-motivated piece of ‘science’ have thrown up over the last 15 years are enough to make a series of films as comical as anything Inspector Clouseau ever got up to.
The unwavering religious devotion of the BBC to the cause leaves me in a state of constant, head-shaking disbelief. The trouble is, until a heavyweight political figure from the West calls a halt to the madness whilst the voices of calm and rational scientists are properly heard, the slow-motion train crash that is the prosperity and stability of western nations will continue to unfold.
Yes indeed! That is precisely the outcome required by Agenda 21.
Re: Roger H: Quote: Imagine he succeeds in persuading the BBC to agree that he is correct…
Imagine? No need for that – the BBC has been Labour’s propaganda arm for decades.
The new Australian PM could give a lead here and has made an encouraging start … so we can expect hostility from Donnison and co. Cue the old Abbott and Costello joke, perhaps?
But does Australia have enough influence?
And as regards Abbott himself, the BBC have already started their usual character assassination by proxy i.e. through their resident ‘comedy’ shows.
Huhne’s got a new job with a renewables firm, so now he can go back to recycling old shit for money.
The BBC and Huhne are made for each other.
Alan:
So fill it in below, tell the BBC trust what you think of their output…..They wont take any notice, but at least register your displeasure..
http://consultations.external.bbc.co.uk/bbc/news_review
Of course, one has to trust that anything the BBC doesn’t want to hear (at least any senior and sincere enough to want to find out) actually gets past the filter. As soon as you complete that form it is within the internal, secret domain. Which means that the people screening can simply send any that don’t suit to that special suite of email addresses Hugs was issued to ‘handle’ complaints.
Conflict of interest being somewhat of a norm with the unique way the BBC is run.
I’ve just given them both barrels. Thank you now I must have a lie down.
I heard the Green Lucas MP complain that the BBC was actually giving time to those who are sceptics.
Horrifying soft facism of the left on display. Think as I think or else.
Please do take legal action. I recall Christian Voice did the same when they pursued a blasphemy charge. When their case was thrown out, as they were advised it would be, they then begged the BBC to pay their 80k costs.
Those pesky Christians, eh? Always causing trouble.
What price freedom of conscience (£80,000)?
At least Leveson will stop the evil Murdoch from crushing descent from the little man, with all his ill-gotten millions – Leaving The field open to the BBC
Alan
How about drafting us a letter that then those of us who have a mind to could then cut and paste and send to our MP ?
Just a thought
Alan, I agree entirely with your post. Yesterday the BBC were absolutely infuriating; every news bulletin found Hampstead Harrabin shamelessly pushing the dominant narrative, reciting the agreed manifesto for all True Believers; to him there was no other Truth – just a few cranks and marginals who, unsportingly, took a contrary view. He never stooped to calling climate sceptics ‘deniers’ (as far as I saw), but the intimation was there, hiding and sneering just beneath the thin veneer of outward respectability.
I know all too well just how despicable these kind of people are to those of us who dissent on the issue of CAGW – I’ve been hounded from other forums, verbally abused in the most hideous fashion, threatened and censored continuously. Perhaps this is why I find it very hard not to agree with those who describe a latent fascism ingrained into the very fabric of the ‘green’ movement.
All day we heard from the BBC how the science was settled – 95% certainty (whatever that is) is as good as final proof to the BBC and to most of the ‘experts’ duly wheeled on to recite the agreed line. But in reality 95% certainty is no better than 9.5%, or any other number you might want to conjure out of thin air (or a computer climate model). It means nothing, of course, but the BBC understands the basic principles of propaganda better than almost anyone: that you just have to keep repeating the message, over and over. In the end, just saying it can even make it true, because in the end the proles start to forget what is real and what isn’t. The lie eventually becomes the truth.
A new, very low point in so-called ‘responsible journalism’ was reached by the BBC yesterday. I remain optimistic that such outrageous practice will eventually come back to haunt the Corporation, but for now sceptics like me must batten down the hatches and weather the blows. The forces ranged against CAGW dissenters are formidable and unimaginably well-funded. Still, the fight goes on as long as ordinary people and decent scientists are prepared to stand up for the non-politicisation of science and climate change reporting.
Never has it been clearer that the AGW hypothesis should be all but dead and buried and yet the environmentalist UN IPCC and the politicians who sponsor them have come out fighting telling us their evidence is stronger than ever.
The majority of people believe them (it seems) because they have spun the hypothesis in such a way that any weather or climatic condition now points to man-made global warming. Harsh freezing winter with record snow levels? Global warming. Cold wet summer? Global warming. A hurricane (any hurricane)? Global warming. Arctic ice melting? Global warming. Floods? Global warming. Drought (any drought)? Global warming. Antarctic ice increasing? Er, dunno, move it along, quick.
The whole mess is just too surreal for words.
So the BBC wheel on europhile non-entity and criminal Chris Hunhe (also now a Guardian columnist) a lawyer, and other than being an Environment Spokesman doesn’t seemingly have any authority on the subject in question.
Yet the BBC banish chaps who are maybe more qualified to speak on the subject of climate change such as David Bellamy and Johnny Ball because they refuse to believe the ‘accepted’ view.
A texter on Jeremy Vine yesterday actually said that the BBC should not give airtime to those that deny…..FFS!
Meanwhile The Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change doggedly ploughs another furrow, hoping that one day – one day – the likes of the BBC will give some airtime to the science i.e. by listening to other scientists, as opposed to exclusively hosting the shrieking, discredited politicians and environmentalists and ‘scientists’ who long ago disassociated themselves from the scientific method.
‘The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary. ‘
http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html
Meanwhile, Yett A. Nother Scientist says:
‘MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot on September 27, 2013:
I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/
A BBC spokesman commented ‘We can’t hear you! La la la la-la-la la…..’
As far as I can ascertain, their seems to be something going on in Mensa about this. The chairman of the Media, Culture and Sport Select Committee is Mensa member John Whittingdale who studied astronomy at university, so he may well be a member of the space special interest group of Mensa? So he may well be informed of the political perversions in climate science as regards the IPCC and CERN and understands the bogus and fraudulent rebuttals of the Cosmoclimatology theory.
If committee members bring up informed issues about the IPCC with the help of the French-Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise they would expose the BBC to blatant media manipulation and journalistic incompetence. The Committee is holding further sessions with the BBC later this year and beyond, including issues relating to the BBC’s Charter which could expire permanently in 2016.
It looks like the peculiar “BBC climate science media manipulation by censorship policy” will be one which the Committee chooses to cover during these sessions. But it does seem as though we have time and patience to write and inform the politicians on this committee, on the other hand we have this short-term IPCC inspired fanaticism, a repeat of the settled science farce, spurred on by a fanatical declaration of an increase in certainty that defies the logical conclusions of the science.
I do think that a growing number of politicians are becoming better informed, but do not know what to do about the corrupt scientific advisers that have mislead them.
Climate science is almost unique amongst the sciences in having an assumption at its core, any competent scientist is taught that once you make an assumption you then try to prove that assumption right or wrong, in climate science that means that if you try to prove it right you are “Left Wing” and if you try to prove it wrong, you are “Right wing”.
Because Astronomy has recently proved the assumption wrong, means that the “Right-wing” has won, but that means that the IPCC has no purpose in existing, and the BBC must be “Left-wing”.
Don’t expect much from Whittingdale. I wrote to him on the subject when he used to be my MP. I received a boiler plate ‘scientists say’ and ”we must act’ bullshit non-reply to the points I raised about green taxes and energy prices. Useless Tories. Instead of scrapping Ed Milliband’s ludicrous climate change act they’ve continued the damage. And now look what’s happened: in a feat of stunning hypocrisy Ed’s managed to pin the blame for skyrocketing energy prices on the Tories and now he’s leading the polls with his plans for a price freeze. Those are votes the Tories could have easily won by pointing out the idiocy of green taxes and scrapping them. Instead they’ve been outflanked by that marxist twat.
I understand that Whittingdale does not reply to anyone who is not one of his constituents.
The boiler plate ‘scientists say’ and ”we must act’ bullshit non-reply is forced on all Tories by the Tory leader, called Mr Cam Moron.
But some Tories are secretly not moronic, we already know that Whittingdale’s colleague on the committee, the MP for Shipley, Philip Davies is on the side of sanity, and we are about to find out more from the secretary of the space special interest group of Mensa about whether Whittingdale is a member of the group and whether he has been informed about the science and the corrupt political goings on at CERN as regards the CLOUD experiment as reported by Mensa members who must be working there.
So Whittingdale is a Mensa member, surrounded by intelligent people who must be informing him about the biggest scientific fraud in history, he is also a member of the freedom association and did astronomy at university.
But then he has to balance that, with the fact that he is a chairman of a committee with Liberal and Labour members, and also a member of a political party with a Mr Cam Moron as its leader.
At a guess, Chilli, I’ll bet that ‘climate change’ was high if not top of the Lib Dem list of ‘red line’ policies when the two parties were trying to reach agreement on forming the coalition.
Attached here is the link to the Approved Summary for Policymakers
Click to access WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
which may be of interest to some.
I have reviewed this reasonably extensively, looking for the statement that says that it is 95% certain that humans are responsible for climate change, a claim which the BBC have been leading with on pretty much all news forums for the last 24 hours or so.
Now, it is fully appreciated that there will be some more eagle eyed readers here than me, but I cannot find any reference to this claim anywhere in this document. I am happy to be corrected though.
I did hear someone on another news outlet yesterday say that it is 95% certain that humans are responsible for 45% of climate change since 1950 (which is obviously not the same thing at all) but I cannot see that reference in this document either.
A case of chinese whispers may be the cause, resulting from extensive briefing in the room of the kind that you see after TV debates in an election environment. No journalistic checking whatsoever in other words.
Post-war and up to the early 80s there was global cooling, to the extent that ‘scientists’ were panicking us all about the possibility of another ice age. Even this piece of very recent and very clearly documented climate history seems to have been consigned to the memory hole and replaced with the new ‘climate change since 1950’ mantra.
Scuse my French, but they’re absolutely fucking shameless.
This bit I found interesting:
Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale
surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming
since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very
high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8}
Does anyone know where I can get records of volcanic activity for the last 100 years?
This may be quite hard to find… there have been 96 in the Philippines alone between 1900 and 2012
http://pinayobserver.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/volcano-eruptions/
This is my point. In their own words, in their own document, global warming and cooling is down to volcanic activity.
You might try http://iceagenow.info/ there’s a lot of stuff on there about increased volcanic activity
can anyone remember the aids virus and the certainty that most people would have a member of their family. Who will die of this game changer catastrophe . What happens nothing
Mad cow disease -according to guardian hospitals should now be in state of collapse dealing with patients with BSE.
Instead the staff have BSE.
Let’s not forget the millenium bug, oh and SARS oh and more recently bird flu
….And endless strains of flu, drought, and apocalyptic winters…
It was the start of ‘normalising’ homosexuality…
Thank God for the internet.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/gerald-warner-dodgy-dossier-on-global-warming-1-3117208
Superb article. Concise and to the point.
I’m writing this on completely the wrong thread I know, but the phrase ‘better than this’ in the headline seems apt as a metaphor for this site as a whole.
Before I get dragged in (as seems to happen) at what seems already a major clusterfudge elsewhere on a ‘you haven’t said anything and that makes you as bad’ basis, it seems the modding has gone AWOL, and things have been allowed to go off the rails after too long, when the warning signs have been there for days. No worse than a BBC FaceBook page to be sure, but I expect better of here.
I don’t ‘like’ stuff that doesn’t serve a sensible purpose, don’t condone it and usually steer clear. I also tend to err on letting those who would let themselves down do so in public and live with the evidence. But abuse is abuse, and if it’s intolerable from one quarter it’s intolerable from all.
At the moment there’s some erratic behaviour (to an inexplicably grotesque, near schizophrenic degree) that to me goes beyond stupid reaction to provocation, and can only hand gifts to those who seek them. Already I see the vultures gathering gratefully after a very long, dry spell.
Hence steering clear. They have been presented opportunity and are responding predictably. Can’t blame any of them (when my family was invoked by DOTI burner-name suicide posters, a line was crossed, and even if the posts were erased, the emails remain on file), though the sanctimony and additional agendas of course resonate loud.
They’ve also so far stayed focussed on the one who deserves it. Fine. On occasion I get tempted to chip in when I sense a false flag/’you lot’ combo brewing, especially when the Candyman soon gets invoked. Not this time. I’m staying well clear.
The site owners are on their own with this one. Like the BBC when they do the same, wash your hands at your peril.
the hurricane season in america is betreen july and october,the peak month is september.can the climate change zealots tell us how many hurricanes has hit america so far this year,yup.one one.why is that.i thought they clamied because of global warming and climate change hurricanes and super storms would become more regular and devastate the eastern seaboard of the states with there ferocity.you could of fooled me mateys.
i said there has been one hurricane in the usa this year,i was wrong on that score,total number = 0.
Anyone know how to take legal action againts the BBC?
Would it not make sense if a group of parties collectivly did so i.e. parties affacted by the BBC’s actions over the years? UKIP, non climate change loonies, jewish peolple, anyone with an opinion to the right of karl marx in general, victims of “millitants” etc etc
We have already had reports regarding propaganda from the BBC over immigration.