It’s endlessly fascinating to watch how the BBC wriggles and turns to ensure that it keeps churning out ‘climate change’ lies. One technique used with obdurate single-mindedness is to report only the views of those who agree that there is ‘consensus’. Thus when the government’s chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, says that’s the case, that’s what the BBC reports. Never mind the latest revelations about the IPCC lies about the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035; never mind that Bin Laden is now using ‘climate change’ as a basis for the need to wreck the Western economy (I wait with bated breath to see how the politicians who support climate lies spin that one); and let’s also ignore that it was propaganda from Greenpeace (and WWF), rather than scientific research, that underpinned the IPCC latest report.

Let’s get on instead with wasting vast amounts of BBC licence fee payers’ money – £1.74m of it – on sending 177 BBC boys and girls to Glastonbury. That’s what our public service remit is all about!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to HEADS IN SAND….

  1. The Beebinator says:

    climategate is real, its here, its happening now, and we need to act now, if we are to stop green activists and politicians hijacking mother nature and sending us back to the stone age and taxing us to death


  2. Martin says:

    The BBC don’t get it nor do they care. They’ve a lot invested in this climate change scam. What makes me laugh is how the wet left are now attacking those in the media that are not scientists for daring to cross the words of the “experts”

    Well can I point a few things out

    1. Many of the pro climate change are not scientists (such as Harrabin)

    2. The IPCC is politically motivated and certainly not full of scientists.

    3. Many of the so called scientists are relying on Government funding to do their work, do Turkey’s vote for Christmas?

    4. Very little of the real so called science has been properly peer reviewed as science normally should be. Instead work has been passed around the like minded and published in pro MGM publications for the most part.

    Any decent Government would now demand a proper independent public inquiry. It’s quite clear data has been forged or distorted and the climate change models are about as reliable as a Gordon Brown promise.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      #4 is key, isn’t it?  That’s what the Warmists at the BBC won’t admit, and the reason why they keep sailing on as if nothing has changed.  When Warmists like Black or Shukman say, “It’s a blow,” they mean that this Climategate noise is going to make it more difficult to convert the heathens.  They honestly don’t see this as a blow to the credibility of the “consensus”.

      To Warmists, it’s not that the science has obviously been rigged, peer review has been subverted, and significant data either vanished or deliberately hidden, but that this just means it’s a shame they don’t have better proof of their Known Fact™.

      It has precious little affect on their beliefs.


  3. Grant says:

    It has been said before, it is religion, money and politics  not science.
    I am rather comforted that the Chinese aren’t falling for it.


    • DP111 says:

      China, like India was not keen on COP-15, but just prior to Copenhagen, they were offered additional sweeteners. In the final analysis, China was not thrilled with the idea of an international panel of bureaucrats appointed by the UN, who would decide China’s CO2 and Carbon output – in effect regulating their industrial policy.

      Given that China is the leading manufacturing country of the world, and continues to grow at a very rapid rate, it is immediately apparent to the Chinese that they would soon run out of carbon credits. They would then have to buy them from African and island states, and even the post-industrial West, which would have lots of them going spare. China immediately saw through this game plan and said NO.

      Looked at from this PoV, AGW, a device cooked up by Britain, the US and the EU, was an excellent device to beggar the Chinese, and make them pay for going industrial. It would also have beggared us in the process. The only ones to profit would have been the perennially undeveloped – Africa, non-oil producing ME states, and various island states.  


  4. John R Smith says:

    The MMGW scam drives left-wing, statist solutions requiring more control, centralisation, less democracry, more monitoring, bigger government, global governance, big structures, plans/goals/strategies from above, special taxes, more interference etc etc.

    All right down the BBC street.


  5. David Morris says:

    Bin Laden is using “climate change” as a reason to wreck the Western economy?    No wonder Barry and Gordon are so miffed with him, that’s their job.


  6. John Anderson says:

    Channel 4 had a good pop at the Warmists last night :


    Too much to hope for – a pincer movement between Andrew Neil and the usually -too-leftie Jon Snow ? 

    The BBC review of bias in its coverage of climate change does not yet seem to be affecting the Usual Suspects – Harrabin,  Brown, Shukman – but opposing voices are building up in the media and even at the BBC.


  7. Jack Bauer says:

    What should we call all those leftist drones who ignore the climategate scandal which revealed the mendacity, lies and fakery of the manmade global warming hoax?  How about…


    Has a nice hubristic ring to it.


    • Asuka Langley Soryu says:

      Wouldn’t really want to stoop to their scummy level. Makes me feel dirty.


  8. The Omega Man says:

    BBC in massive climate change about-turn!

    From “The Science IS Settled” to Roger Harrabin’s last sentance in his latest blog “The unfinished science of climate change goes on. ”


    The rest of the article is just the usual IPCC defence taken from BBC journalist’s handbook, on why its OK not to check your sources.


    • DP111 says:

      What? The science hasnt finished yet?


    • Guest says:

      When in a hole…

      Fresh from declaring the ‘science to be settled’ (about the moment when a ton of it was shown to be anything but) and luring his numpty boss into McCarthyesque claims of those with questions being ‘saboteurs’, BBC AGW poster bot ED Miliband is showing how disagreeing with ‘the narrative’ will not at all result in religious adherents pausing at all to ponder any bases upon which their religion is founded: 


      The Battle of the Bulge springs to mind, as the BBC Panzers will be deployed, but without fuel in support might juts struggle a tad if they come up against anyone who simply says ‘but what about…?’