Bbc - State Propaganda Machine

[threegee]

Something to bear in mind when you are subjected to the constant pictures of melting ice, and people living in precarious river deltas etc., is that the BBC Governors have decided. They have decided that there is now no need to make a pretence to balance. That lots of scientists hold a quite different view is something we are not to be burdened with.

So the tree-huggers at the Beeb are given full reign, senior staff can no longer steer the Corporation back to a middle of the road view. Time I think to get rid of the BBC Governors and replace them with a democratically elected board properly representative of the people they serve.

Meanwhile beware of the BBC propaganda. It's all to easy to led into the belief that there is incontrovertible proof of global warming. That all dissent is now silent, and that there are only flat-earthers left. In fact quite the reverse; more and more thinking people are speaking out to question the hysteria.

If you want a balanced view of what's going on then you could do a lot worse than visit http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are.html These prominent people aren't on the government payroll, and they aren't on the payroll of energy companies either!

And kids, don't believe everything you are told in the classroom. Your teachers are following the government line - or worse! To get at the truth you'll have to start looking into this for yourselves. It's not easy, but you'll find that the junk you are being fed won't stand up to close examination, and that your teachers could be very wrong!

[mobius]

Something to bear in mind when you are subjected to the constant pictures of melting ice, and people living in precarious river deltas etc., is that the BBC Governors have decided. They have decided that there is now no need to make a pretence to balance. That lots of scientists hold a quite different view is something we are not to be burdened with.

The BBC hasn't had governors for almost three years. The Board of Governors was abolished in place of the BBC Trust and its activities are overseen by a Board of Trustees. It is not within the Trustees' remit to determine the day-to-day editorial policy of BBC News.

the tree-huggers at the Beeb are given full reign, senior staff can no longer steer the Corporation back to a middle of the road view. Time I think to get rid of the BBC Governors and replace them with a democratically elected board properly representative of the people they serve

Vacant positions at the BBC Trust are publicly advertized and open to competitive application by members of the public.

If you want a balanced view of what's going on then you could do a lot worse than visit http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are.html These prominent people aren't on the government payroll, and they aren't on the payroll of energy companies either!

Errr...yes they are! This is Lord Lawson's outfit, barely a fortnight old, which has recently come to public attention following the release of e-mail communications at UEA. It can hardly be described as balanced - it merely promotes a mirrored agenda to those who affirm climate change as a result of human activity. This is the same Nigel Lawson who, from 1995 -- 2003, served as President of the British Association of Energy Economics whose activities are heavily supported by BP and Royal Dutch Shell and other such companies. Many of the other GWPF members (a lot of economists, I see) are also involved in front organizations lobbying on behalf of oil companies (especially Ian Pilmer.)

And kids, don't believe everything you are told in the classroom. Your teachers are following the government line - or worse! To get at the truth you'll have to start looking into this for yourselves. It's not easy, but you'll find that the junk you are being fed won't stand up to close examination, and that your teachers could be very wrong!

As an academic and scientist I quite agree, but scrutinizing the truth from the junk is a tricky business and depends heavily upon whoever performs the examination.

Edited December 6, 2009 by mobius

[threegee]

The BBC hasn't had governors for almost three years. The Board of Governors was abolished in place of the BBC Trust and its activities are overseen by a Board of Trustees. It is not within the Trustees' remit to determine the day-to-day editorial policy of BBC News.

Sorry for the terminology mistake. The fact remains that the BBC supremos are! Source: the Beeb itself. An open admission of the News Channel when challenged by two concerned members of the public that word has gone down that it is no longer necessary to provide a balanced view. Day-to-day policy? What in reality does that mean? If there is a general directive as to unbalanced conduct then how can you have a balanced day-to-day policy?

Vacant positions at the BBC Trust are publicly advertized and open to competitive application by members of the public.

And who vets those applications? Not the viewing public I'd wager?

Errr...yes they are! This is Lord Lawson's outfit, barely a fortnight old, which has recently come to public attention following the release of e-mail communications at UEA. It can hardly be described as balanced - it merely promotes a mirrored agenda to those who affirm climate change as a result of human activity. This is the same Nigel Lawson who, from 1995 -- 2003, served as President of the British Association of Energy Economics whose activities are heavily supported by BP and Royal Dutch Shell and other such companies. Many of the other GWPF members (a lot of economists, I see) are also involved in front organizations lobbying on behalf of oil companies (especially Ian Pilmer.)

It is weighted to economists because it's about economic policy. It is avowedly politically neutral and has cross-party support, and it doesn't take money from either side. It would be nigh impossible not to have anyone who mattered who wasn't somehow involved at some time with some commercial interest. c.f. our Parliament. It's not about the scientific or pseudo scientific arguments, but what to actually do in the light of available hard evidence. There are countless links I could have included, but I think this was the most practical one at a time when Gordon is in Copenhagen saving the world (again), and pledging billions of future tax revenue he hasn't got, and never will have!

As an academic and scientist I quite agree, but scrutinizing the truth from the junk is a tricky business and depends heavily upon whoever performs the examination.

Very tricky, but you have to start somewhere. The point of the post is to point out that you shouldn't accept someone else's pre-digested truth - especially from an organisation that is no longer prepared to present a balanced view.

[mobius]

Sorry for the terminology mistake. The fact remains that the BBC supremos are! Source: the Beeb itself. An open admission of the News Channel when challenged by two concerned members of the public that word has gone down that it is no longer necessary to provide a balanced view. Day-to-day policy? What in reality does that mean? If there is a general directive as to unbalanced conduct then how can you have a balanced day-to-day policy?

And who vets those applications? Not the viewing public I'd wager?

I'm not privy to the process through which senior appointments are made to the BBC, but in common with all major public institutions I would guess lay members play a role.

It is weighted to economists because it's about economic policy. It is avowedly politically neutral and has cross-party support, and it doesn't take money from either side.

Although the GWPF are a private organization and not under obligation to produce public accounts, they refuse to release details of their funding. This lack of transparency lays open the charge that their input an any debate about climate change will be coloured by their paymasters.

It would be nigh impossible not to have anyone who mattered who wasn't somehow involved at some time with some commercial interest. c.f. our Parliament. It's not about the scientific or pseudo scientific arguments, but what to actually do in the light of available hard evidence. There are countless links I could have included, but I think this was the most practical one at a time when Gordon is in Copenhagen saving the world (again), and pledging billions of future tax revenue he hasn't got, and never will have!

Indeed, I suspect the prospect of a global environmental tax levy is what prompted the GWPF into action. Nigel Lawson has made numerous speeches on this, often couching his arguments in terms of scientific doubt in order to make his case.

Very tricky, but you have to start somewhere. The point of the post is to point out that you shouldn't accept someone else's pre-digested truth - especially from an organisation that is no longer prepared to present a balanced view.

But what if that person were an expert, with considerable knowledge and skill who had spent many years to arrive at that truth? Should not the overall balance be weighted in deference to their truth rather than one rashly cobbled together and given over to little critical appraisal?

In terms of climate change, I understand and appreciate there are a range of views and interpretations held by scientists and non-scientists alike. Over 90 % of climate researchers hold that man-made emissions are causing the planet's temperature to rise, but this drops to a far lower percentage in the (UK) public at large. Now, how should a debate be framed to account for such a diversity of opinion?

Whose opinion is more valid, the technocrat or the layman?

[Merlin]

This global warming is a good way of getting taxes off people through the back door,big cars big tax, fuel tax,energy tax and it's all our fault for wanting to heat our homes and drive decent cars and has nothing whatsoever to do with the 30,000+ nuclear tests carried out in the sixties and seventies by various governments HAS IT?

Noooooo it's down to me revving the balls off my small 1litre vw polo to keep up with traffic,rather than buy a big car that does 70mph at a little over tick-over!

Three g I like the bit about the school kids thinking for themselves and not believing what they are told, but I have been saying the same thing on here for a long time and not just to the school kids!

I'll leave it at that .....for the minute.

[threegee]

I'm not privy to the process through which senior appointments are made to the BBC, but in common with all major public institutions I would guess lay members play a role.

In this case that role appears to be to suppress all public debate.

http://biasedbbc.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=hotair&thread=865

Like you I don't understand how the appointees come to be where they are, and I guess that's how it was designed to be. Anyway, it isn't democratic, and it smells almost as badly as the previous unsustainable grace and favour system. Tinker at the edges and claim a major reform?

Although the GWPF are a private organization and not under obligation to produce public accounts, they refuse to release details of their funding. This lack of transparency lays open the charge that their input an any debate about climate change will be coloured by their paymasters.

They are a registered educational charity, and like all such charities must produce statutory returns. Their policy on only taking funding from private individuals and other public charities is clearly stated. You can bet your boots it will be scrutinised most closely.

I'd guess than Nigel has dipped into his own deep pockets to kick it off. He's got nothing to gain from this himself, and unlike Gore (with a large amount of money invested in the carbon trading nonsense) is acting in the public interest. If he wasn't he wouldn't be getting the cross-party support or respected figures that he's persuaded to participate.

Indeed, I suspect the prospect of a global environmental tax levy is what prompted the GWPF into action. Nigel Lawson has made numerous speeches on this, often couching his arguments in terms of scientific doubt in order to make his case.

It probably has. He's an economist, and one of the best money men this country has ever had. Didn't always lick Maggie's boots either. Committing national economic suicide is something he's not going to sit on his hands and see happen. Do you honestly believe we'd be in the mess we are in now if he'd been in control of the economy?

But what if that person were an expert, with considerable knowledge and skill who had spent many years to arrive at that truth? Should not the overall balance be weighted in deference to their truth rather than one rashly cobbled together and given over to little critical appraisal?

In terms of climate change, I understand and appreciate there are a range of views and interpretations held by scientists and non-scientists alike. Over 90 % of climate researchers hold that man-made emissions are causing the planet's temperature to rise, but this drops to a far lower percentage in the (UK) public at large. Now, how should a debate be framed to account for such a diversity of opinion?

Whose opinion is more valid, the technocrat or the layman?

Weighted maybe; but we are talking here about the outright suppression of dissenting opinion.

I don't believe your 90% figure at all. Thirty one thousand US scientists have so far dissented http://www.oism.org/pproject/ and I think the figure bandied about by the US global warming lobby is one in 5 dissenters? Get an unbiased figure and take into account all the financial pressure being put on dissenters, and the true split could be a lot nearer evens. But in reality there aren't two camps but a whole spectrum of opinions. However the global warmers would like you to believe that there's simply total unanimity plus a few nutters. Look through the leaked e-mails and you'll rapidly glean that even the main proponents of this pseudo-science aren't convinced by their own story.

The sad fact is that it's now far more about politics than it is about science. And the politicisation of the matter has come from the global warming lobby who are benefiting massively. Those e-mails illustrate that this is not good science; the data is being shaped to fit a pre-ordained agenda; and dissenters must be silenced by any means possible. They insult the intelligence of the general public too: "the ignorant masses" But - rather like that Iraq dossier - expert opinion still doesn't meet the requirements of senior politicians, who have in turn added their own spin. WMD all over again?

Only two videos here, but there are dozens and dozens that shed light on what's going on in the name of science:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=rSfcAhoG3_g

Little mention of any of this on the BBC because it doesn't fit the government line, and we "ignorant masses" wouldn't be able to handle the plain unvarnished truth even if they consented to provide it.

Good point Merlin. Apparently 7% of Gordon's revenue now comes from so-called green taxes. He's raided every piggy bank, and borrowed to the hilt right into the next generation of taxpayers. The only way to raise more tax is to pretend that he's doing it to save the planet.

[Malcolm Robinson]

It now a fully qualified religion GGG and you know never to talk religion or politics with friends!

[mercuryg]

I don't believe your 90% figure at all.

What was said was that 90% of 'climate researchers' believe; how one defines a climate researcher i'm not sure, but it's safe to say the spread among those who do agree is varied.

This is a particular bugbear of mine - not that climate change (note the non-use, these days, of 'Global warming') is happening, for it is, but that we, the human race, are solely responsible for it.

Logically, we can't be, for without going into the details here - I don't have them to hand admittedly - the figures simply don't add up.

Schoolkids these days are being fed the line that leaving a light bulb on at home kills a polar bear; it might if its a new fangled low energy one and the poor bear eats it, but otherwise it's !*!@# .

I'm a known and hardened skeptic - i simply don't believe the !*!@# we're being fed.

[Merlin]

Had to rep you there merc just for the two swear words :lol: