WHAT’S NEWS?

It is a hot topic but I couldn’t help but wonder why the BBC gives this as the highlight to the “news” today but not this. Answers on a postcard…

Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to WHAT’S NEWS?

  1. John Horne Tooke says:

    At first glane I thought it said

    “Commonwealth leaders back climate change fraud”

       0 likes

  2. cassandra king says:

    Its not the crime that gets them in the end its the cover up and we are seeing clearly who is trying to cover up the scandal and who is trying to uncover it.
    Its quite a hefty axis of frauds/cheats/charlatons/liars/conmen/political nut jobs/swindlers/carpetbaggers/chancers and snake oil salesmen on the side of the fraud and cover up.
    An awful lot of people are going to look completely stupid, others will be exposed as one of the above descriptions, those people will fight tooth and nail to kill the scandal and therin lies the seeds of their defeat.
    The political classes have the most to lose, if Cameron is found out by the voter to have pushed the global warming fraud in the face of evidence that directly contradicts the AGW consensus and then refuses to face the real facts then he will be severely punished by the electorate, as of now Cameron is as silent as the grave and how long he remains silent will weigh heavily on his prospects for PM.

       0 likes

  3. Marky says:

    Er I can’t put my finger on it, mmm (scratches chin), nope.

       0 likes

  4. Mailman says:

    John,

    I was reading an article about the Commonwealth heads backing Copenhagen in a NZ paper BUT the truth of the matter was laid out in the second pararagraph, $10BILLION fund!

    Everyone has their price. For the Commonwealth, their price was about $10BILLION!

    Sadly I believe Copenhagen will be a global warming ™ wet dream!

    Mailman

       0 likes

  5. cassandra king says:

    In the end its alll about money and power, who has the money and who has the power, the interplay between the two groups is the constant age old interchange and desire of the one group to have the others gift.

    The political class have the power and they obviosly have a desire for money(Bliar Etc)those with the money buy favours and influence to get what they want.
    In between are the ordinary people who pay, its always the ordinary people who pay for it all, but the game has evolved now, the political and money classes have engineered a way to remove the troublesome and unreliable voter from the power-money equation, you see business can be interupted by the democratic process, big money takes the time and effort to buy off the politicians and then the grubby know nothing interfering prole scum have the temerity to vote out those bought off politicians! How very annoying eh? I mean buying of the politician takes time and effort and then another set has to be bought off, this was not cost effective or value for money and if there is one thing about the money class they want their pound of flesh.
    We are in the post democratic age where the bought off political class do what they are told and they get rich, rule by big money with the toady political class enjoying the yachts and luxuries and privileges, of course someone has to pay for that and the increased profits, why not the prole scum eh? its not like they deserve or even appreciate the better things in life eh?

       0 likes

    • Will S says:

      The power/money game you refer to requires the use of guilt to get “the people” to pay for these games and who better to act as the conduit between them and the people then the good ol’ BBC: it’s what they are good at!

      The other key concept at play is the well entrenched altruistic morality used by religious & secular leaders who say it is the basis for how we should live our lives – that our actions should benefit anyone else but ourselves – to benefit ourselves being immoral (the religious right and the left wing both share the same irrational morality – that we cannot act for our own good.

      Of course, this is an impossible moral code to live by – try it! –  so we can ignore it day to day and yet we accept the guilt it brings.

      The environmental movement uses this moral play to entrench our guilt for driving that extra 5 miles, for example, and how that by acting so selfishly, we are killing other people and extinguishing our environment.

      Until people realise that *all* power lusters have nothing on us but the use of guilt and altruism then they become powerless wimps to be ignored and laughed at…and ultimately they should be ostracised – through preferably castrated, but then I cannot condone violence!

      Until we stop accepting the guilt and stop funding the idiots and the legislators, through legal means, then the whole game will continue ad infinitum.

      A good step forward will be the privatisation of the BBC.

         0 likes

      • Will S says:

        Liberal Democrats website:

        The “Think of our children” guilt-trip:

        “Climate change is getting worse [in what way, given temps have stablised for at least 10 years, they do not say] and could destroy our way of life. Our children will suffer most if we don’t act now.”

        http://www.libdems.org.uk/energy_and_climate_change.aspx

        The Conservatives:

        Moral equivalence of “Climate Change” and terrorism:

        “So when it comes to tackling climate change, just as with fighting international terror, Britain must always be a strong force for progressive change in the world.”

        http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/11/27/the-copenhagen-summit-is-of-historic-importance/

        New Labour:

        “Winning the fight for Britain’s future”:

        Our new £100 billion [whose money they do not say?] blueprint for renewable energy will deliver a step change in low carbon energy supply.”

        The Green Party

        Look how many people you are killing and “runaway climate change” is a “horrific” thought:

        “The consequences of climatic instability are already reckoned to be causing 300,000 premature deaths [any data for that spurous claim?] and $125 billion [ditto] worth of damage around the world every year. And the prospect of runaway climate change – if we don’t meet the necessary targets for reducing emissions – would be horrific.

        Feel the guilt and hand over your taxes or else.

           0 likes

  6. David Jones says:

    My firm had it’s annual retreat yesterday. I asked five of my partners (solicitors) if they had heard of climategate. Only one had and that was because of a piece on local TV news (because it’s a local story (!) – I live in East Anglia). These are not stupid people. What a wonderful burial job the BBC has done.

       0 likes

  7. David Jones says:

    Just seen this on WUWT – “Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/climategate-surpasses-global-warming-on-google-autosuggest-still-blocked/#more-13350

    News Results for:

    global warming – 10,100,000

    climategate – 10,400,000

    But still not a big story for the bBC.

       0 likes

  8. Guest says:

    Just watching BBC Breakfast News, with Andrew Marr trailing his showow later on.

    Apparently his guest is Caroline Lucas of the Green party, ‘as we don’t have them on very often’ Try getting muesli off your monitor.

    This after a top expert commentator form the NME is wheeled out to question why the EU might be sending Nic Griffin of the BNP to Copenhagen (actually, a very good one, though I suspect the answer might be using the same logic that you wheel any extreme out once in a blue moon to show balance and to generate heat over light).

    On a related issue, looking at the headlines, maybe now the NHS inspection system is discovered to be not fit for purpose having failed to spot any abuses, could it be re-assigned (I don’t think quango screw-ups ever get fired) to help the Sir Humprey appointee hired to bury Climategate?

       0 likes

  9. ryan says:

    What a joke the Andrew Marr show is. Even within his intro he talks about “catastrophic” climte change. Then, a token nod to potential overblown climate warming claims – eureka I think – alas, no, who’s he asking, the Green leader no less. I wonder what she might think?

    Pathetic. I hope Boulton covers it after 10 on Sky.

       0 likes

    • Martin says:

      I only saw the intro, preferring to have a nice peaceful lie in today, but Marr appeared to be a Tory free zone again.

         0 likes

  10. Guest says:

    Interesting that Ms. Frostrupp on the Andrew Marr show is so excised by the power of the state when it comes to some censorious impositions (latest daft ‘you have a camera out in the open so I’ll bust you and not the bloke doing it covertly) but not when it comes to another… namely the science that is informing Copenhagen.

    Fortunately, her warm-up act is now being well complemented as one writes.

       0 likes

  11. Guest says:

    Credit where due. Mr. Marr has asked the CRU question. A shame Ms. Lucas’ reply not delved into further.

       0 likes

  12. Guest says:

    It’s frightening how the power of the state can be used by various entities to censor. Plus there’s that latest story on plod feeling the Section 44 collar of some shutterbugs. Congrats to Andrew for being one of few in the BBC to accept the CRU emails exist and might be a bit of an issue. Mind you, the response from the Establishment so far is like an episode of ‘Yes Minsiter’. Is it true the enquiry into this has been put into the burying hands of a fixer who would doubtless benefit from the investigate oversight competence of various hospital trusts in the news today?

       0 likes

  13. Will S says:

    I understood Google had lifted its “ban” on the word “climategate” when you use the autosuggestion box, yet trying it now, it is not coming up as a suggestion.

    It’s as if the BBC controlled Google! =-O

       0 likes