Friday, December 03, 2010
Following yesterday's BBC response &; my further query I got this back from the programme producer
Dear Neil - thank you for your e-mail. I feel my reply below suffices and answers the points you've raised.
OK I'm going to treat this in the legalistic manner such a response deserves.
He is a BBC employee on a BBC email responding to an enquiry to the BBC. This therefore is an official BBC statement representing the very highest standard of integrity to which the BBC can lay claim.
I had raised some specific questions Perhaps you could point me to some occasion when a BBC representative has said that the production of some foreign company could not possibly be described as propaganda because in an hour's broadcast it contained more than 1 word. Indeed if you are sincere in your claim [that the claim at the end of the programme that not drastically cutting CO2 would cause "catastrophe" didn't mean the programme was claiming catastrophe} you certainly must be easily able to & I ask you to within the next 48 hours.Well pretty lightweight but Richard/The BBC has answered that the failure to give such an example does indeed prove that the BBC do not hold themselves to any standard remotely close to those they claim to apply to others & any claim they ever make to greater integrity is just the mouthings of lying hypocrites.
If your claim to "due" balance is true then, if you can point to 1 single programme where the BBC has given unfettered time to the sceptical view the balance of scientific opinion must run at least 10.000 to 1 for alarmism. Can you name one such BBC programme? Since 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying alarmism can you name at least 310,000,000 scientists who support alarmism. Can you? Indeed can you even, as Professor Stewart has been unable to, name 2 scientists, from among the large majority not paid by government, who support alarmism? If the BBC claims to be even 0.0000001% honest you will certainly be able to. Again I think it reasonable for you to do so within 48 hours.That's more like it. He insists that this question is entirely answered by the fact that the original answer doesn't giive any examples of any programme allowing sceptics free speech, not even to 1 allowing a genuine debate he/The BBC have just officially stated that, as an organisation they are not as much as 0.0000001% honest. For non-mathematicians that is normally rounded to zero. Obviously if the entire BBC are officially wholly & completely corrupt & dishonest every single person working there must also be wholly
& completely corrupt & dishonest.
I must ask you how the term giving "due weight" to "minority" views is specifically interpreted since your answer has been that in this case & therefore presumably in all others "due weight" means "almost total censorship of"? Unless you have information to the contrary that must be the default assumption. Of course that definition is politically compatible with, indeed almost the definition of, fascism.Well from the horse's mouth the BBC officially do not dispute that that under their Newspeak the term "due balance" in the BBC guidlines does indeed mean "total censorship" & that the organisation is, by definition, undeniably Fascist.
If the BBC wish to claim that their definition of "due weight" means anything other than total censorship you will be able to say, within48 hours, when the decision not to broadcast formal debates on "global warming" (or indeed any other subject of public interest) or even report the results of such debates was rescinded?
That they feel the refusal to deny that the particular egregious lies told in the programme were indeed total lies fully "answers the point" & that, rather than retract either of the the BBC intends to, quite deliberately maintain them as representing the very highest standard of honesty to which the BBC ever aspires.
Note also that we are officially told that the "undeniability" that the BBC " lies & continuously censors reporting of racial massacres for the deliberate purpose of assisting (ex-)Nazis in the practice of racial genocide". They refused previously to dispute that, despite saying they would if presented with the evidence so this is not a new one but the repeated acceptance & particularly the admission that the refusal to do so "answers the point" makes it impossible for any BBC representative ever to claim not to be a pro-Nazi murderer.
Elsewhere I have said that while journalists who lie to promote genocide are just as criminal as those who worked the ovens at Auschwitz. However the comparison is grossly unfair to the latter. Any of them who refused would either have been shot or sent to the Russian front (almost a death sentence itself). The worst that could happen to a BBC employee who decided not to promote racial genocide, child rape & organlegging would be having to work for a living.
PPS Japan has decided that it is not going to support a continuation of the Kyoto Treaty beyond 2012. Since Kyoto is in Japan that makes it about as big a blow to all the catastrophic warming eco-fascists trtying not only to extend but enlarge this parasitism as could be. Expect it to lead the BBC News tonight or, assuming they are still reporting on the basis of "due weight" expect to see it censored.
UPDATE to PPS My lowest expectations of BBC censorship were marginally exceeded. Not only did the Japanese disowning of Kyoto not make 1st item on the news but it was entirely censored. The BBC did spend several minutes reporting from Cancun but without using the word Japan. Instead they stated as undisputed fact that 2010 is the "warmest year". This is based on claims from known liar James Hansen who says that though almost all measurements show cooling a small number, at sea & in the Arctic, representing enormous areas, allegedly show increases & that this more than cancels out the cooling in all the parts of the world where people live. No explanation has been made of how the observed increase in Arctic ice can be compatible with alleged substantial warming & 0obviously Hansen's "discovery" has not been independently verified, which it would have to be before the BBC (or anybody else) could honestly call it proven.
Anybody who has read 1984's rewriting of statistics will recognise the BBC's corruption.