Friday, March 25, 2011
"You have questioned the line in our finding in which I said that it was "reasonable to draw on the conclusions of the world's leading scientific bodies which work outside the framework of government, such as the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society". I have understood you to say that these organisations cannot be considered independent because they are publicly funded and therefore cannot be relied on in concluding that there is a "scientific consensus"that global warming is taking place and is predominantly man-made.
I should point out that I described the organisation as "outside the framework of government" and I chose those words deliberately . I did not mean to suggest that they were necessarily independent in terms of their funding, but I was suggesting that they were necessarily independent of direct government influence".My reply
I thank you for your response confirming that the BBC, while continuing to propagandise that there is a "consensus" of "independent" scientists on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) cannot now maintain that there is now not any independent scientist, defined in the conventional usage of the word as being "not dependent" in the entire world who is part of this "consensus". Since you accept there are now over 31,000 who say there is no problem this must be a new BBC use of the word "consensus" to go with your new use of the word "independent". I previously pointed out how Orwell's concept of Newspeak arose from his experiences at the BBC.
I note you assert that I was wrong to believe you had described these government funded bodies as independent because you had merely described them as "outside the framework of government".and indeed provide quotations to prove it. Regrettably this is another instance of the very highest standard of honesty to which the BBC aspire, otherwise known as a total and deliberate lie. In this case you have, as the BBC often do, edited the remark to appear to be completely different from what it was (similar examples being in deleting mention of the offer of amnesty in Gaddafi's speech offering amnesty or the deletion of 5 hours, 59 1/2 minutes from the 6 hour interview with James Delingpole to suggest he was in error over CAGW). Going back to the original letter you said "But it seems to me to be reasonable to draw on the conclusions of the world's leading independent scientific bodies which work outside the frame of government, such as the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society" so chiding me that you did not claim they were independent is wholly dishonest.
So you did claim that the reason the BBC are pushing CAGW is because you claimed to have a "consensus" of "independent" scientists saying so. In fact, not only is there no "consensus" you are unable to find a single one of these boasted scientists anywhere in the world and have been seen to be caught lying about it.
Now firstly do you accept that though, out of millions of scientists worldwide you have been unable to find a single one of them who is "independent" of government funding (in the normal English language use of the term) this is a statistical impossibility unless CAGW is being heavily and corruptly promoted by government?
Secondly that the BBC claim to "due balance" in spending 10s of thousands of hours and censoring even as much as half an hour for the alternate position is not consistent with "due balance" as normally understood by speakers of the English language?
Thirdly that since the basis of your claim to a "consensus" among "independent" scientists has proven not dubious but wholly, completely and totally without any trace of foundatio,n the BBC, if remotely honest, would have to withdraw it?
Fourthly that the BBC has no slightest intention of withdrawing the lie that "The level, of consensus is greater than in any other area of science" even though, among independent scientists, there is not only no consensus for alarmism but that all the evidence there is points to a consensus that it is bogus That, in fact, this fraudulent scare story, promoted by government to enhance their power, nonetheless represents the very highest standard of honesty to which anybody at the BBC ever aspires?