Click to get your own widget

Wednesday, March 23, 2011


  Back in November I complained about the BBC programme, "Scotland's Changing Landscape"which had, among other things faked an experiment to pretend it suggested 2.5C warming rather than 0.00025C and lied by claiming that catastrophic warming was more thoroughly accepted than anything else in science.

  I made a formal complaint, they replied and we batted it about a bit finally both agreeing that both of these claims represent the very highest standard of honesty to which anybody in the BBC ever aspires. Also although they are legally required to show "due balance" they have no remotest intention of doing so and indeed acknowledged having produced 10s of thousands of hours of alarmist propaganda and preventing even half an hour of scepticism - this represents the very closest to "balance" to which they aspire.

    I finally repeated the complaint limiting it solely to the claim that no part of science is more widely accepted than warming alarmism and have now got their reply which unfortunately is not formatted to appear here. This is my reply they requested.

Dear Colin,                            

                   Thank you for the response which was as expected. Since this has been through the full complaint's process nobody can now dispute that your claim that on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming "The level of consensus is greater than in any other area of science" represents the very highest standard of honesty to which the BBC ever aspires. On the other hand, as you admit, it is literally totally and completely untrue.

      This is no surprise. We clearly both know that the BBC is wholly and completely dishonest on a wide range of topics from the deliberate censorship of mass murder to promote racial genocide; deliberately falsely describing Nazis engaged in genocide as "democratic multi-culturalists"; the most blatant party political bias in the fascist cause not just in the manner of "questioning" interviewees but in open censorship of both interviewees and basic news; in deliberate censorship of debate solely to prevent the operation of democracy; in the deliberate promotion of child sex slavery and organlegging; the deliberate editing and fabrication of false quotes attributing them to people the government want to bomb; deliberately falsely claiming a substantial rise in sea level; deliberate and dishonest promotion of a compliant candidate to party leadership; deliberately maintaining known lies to promote false scare stories and a number of other offences to horrible to mention.

       With all of these deliberate acts representing the very highest standard of honesty to which the BBC aspires one can see why George Orwell, who had worked there, used the BBC as his template for the Ministry of Truth. Clearly nothing has changed, at least for the better.

      However there is one new point you raised in your letter which requires some evidential support. You claimed "but it seems to me to be reasonable to draw on the conclusions of the world's leading scientific bodies which work outside of the framework of government, such as the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society" which, though to a sharply reducing degree in the RS case, support alarmism. However neither are actually "outside the framework". Specifically the Royal Society gets £45 million from the government, and while that is not comparable to the £3,494 million the government bungs you for services rendered it clearly means they can not be called independent.

      Thus I would be interested to know who exactly fulfils your requirement of independence and supports your alleged consensus. I have previously asked alarmists worldwide, including the BBC, Sir Paul Nurse, chair of the Royal Society, Michael Mann and literally 100s of thousands of alarmist journalists, spokesmen and readers to name 2 prominent scientists who are not paid by the state and are members of this "consensus". So far I have received one name from the environment editor of the Independent who named James Lovelock and one from a website in South Africa who named James Lovelock. As you may know he largely changed his opinion, following the revelations of the climategate fraud stating that only the sceptics had remained "sane".

        By comparison the Oregon Foundation, which certainly fits your required description of independent (despite which mention of it remains censored at the BBC) has listed 31,000 scientists who deny your alleged "consensus". While acknowledging the claim of consensus as, yet another, example of the highest standard of honesty to which anybody at the BBC ever aspires it seems to me that it is dishonest, even by normal BBC standards, to apply the word "consensus" to a group that has nobody in it.

     I therefore look forward within 48 hours to seeing the BBC list of persons "outside of the framework of government" on whose support you have relied. After all if you do not already have such a list it would be, further, irrefutable proof of the total dishonesty of the BBC and if you cannot compile one it would be further overwhelming evidence that the entire scare story and attendant frauds have been quite deliberately promoted by the state, particularly the one you serve.

       I await your response. I would also be interested in any defence you might wish to make of the various lies mentioned above, particularly those which have promoted fascism, nazism, genocide and the dissection of living people to steal their body organs.
       Neil Craig

Labels: , ,

You will be waiting a long time. Colin Tregear from the BBC is a bit of a nutter. I caught him out defending the BBC putting out a science programme based on a single piece of research the production team hadn't even seen then couldn't produce when I asked for it. Then he told the BBC trust what conclusions to come to and they came to, surprise surprise, those very conclusions!!

I guess having to lie for a living sends you a bit crazy.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.