Friday, November 16, 2012
Ecofascism - 2 Unpiblished Letters - Herald & Scotsman
This went to the Herald in reply to an article by Ian Bell. For comparison it is worth noting that the Herald has today published 4 separate letters saying how wonderful the BBC is.
"essential", "second to none. It is full of superb programmes", "should take care not to play into the hands of far less benign forces", "BBC is exemplary".
The online comments shown vary from anti-BBC to uncommitted.
I would like to congratualte the Herald on its diligence in censoring any written comment about our Ministry of Truth which might show any lack of respect.
I also congratulate you for censoring any mention of the 28gate scandal, which proves that the BBC has been deliberately lying to us to promote the global warming scare, despite it having gone viral in the blogsphere days ago. This is the attitude that has made British journalism what it is today. (put as another letter to them a few minutes ago)
Sir,
The defence of the BBC by Ian Bell on Wednesday amounts to saying "They are the great & mighty, government owned BBC, trust them, ignore the blogsphere behind the curtain".
He could hardly have timed it worse. On the same day newspapers first started reporting the BBC's 28gate scandal, which has been viral on the net for several days previously (the BBC has, as I write, yet to report).
This is a scoop obtained by co-operative investigative journalism entirely on the net. For 6 years the BBC have claimed that their censorship of any dissent on the catastrophic global warming issue was justified because they had held a meeting of Britain's 28 "leading scientists" who had agreed the "science" of catastrophic warming was unimpeachable. It was a blogger, Tony Newbery, who made an FoI request simply to know who had given the "best scientific advice." It was him, who kept up the pressure as the BBC refused to answer and brought in platoons of barristers, probably costing over £100k of our money, to prevent us knowing what the BBC insisted "journalistic ethics" prevented them making public.
It was another blogger who then found the list on the site of an environmental lobbyist the BBC had given it to.
It turned out that of the 28 only 3 were scientists, all paid tom promote alarmist. None had done "leading" work on the subject. The rest were an odd collection of Greenpeace (2) and other "environmental charity" activists, renewables salespersons, civil servants (including a US one) and a surprising number managing 3rd world "aid."
The BBC lied, repeatedly over a period of years to maintain a political propaganda position not justified by the evidence. Propaganda which has certainly cost the British people many hundreds of billions of pounds & by more than doubling electricity prices, brought us into recession and nearly 1 million Scots households into fuel poverty. It seems inevitable that much of the testimony given by a whole range of BBC employees in court must be untrue. The police who spent £2 million on prosecuting Sheriden must, on this issue where the evidence is so much easier to obtain, be equally diligent.
The Scotsman is much better. My letter to them is a response to Naill Stewart of Scottish Reneables & they have published 3 other letters taking him apart over the figures. Still I think my letter, which goes more to criticising the paymasters of warming propaganda (a subject which astonishingly never gets reported by the MSM) is a good one. Well I was amused by it.
Your reader Niall Stewart calls us global warming sceptics a "vocal minority" (letter today). Polls tend to show those of us who doubt catastrophic warming is evident are actually a majority.
However is he not thereby castigating himself? After all he is one the army of people who have, over the years, received hundreds of billions of pounds from government to promote warming alarmism, renewables, and other "environmental" scares and their expensive big government nostums.
If we sceptics are "vocal" compared to all that, are he and his chums, with the recent refusal of him or any other government funded alarmist to enter a public debate on the subject, not falling down on the job? Even despite his own regular appearances as a reader in newspaper letters across Scotland and equally regularly in news items.
"essential", "second to none. It is full of superb programmes", "should take care not to play into the hands of far less benign forces", "BBC is exemplary".
The online comments shown vary from anti-BBC to uncommitted.
I would like to congratualte the Herald on its diligence in censoring any written comment about our Ministry of Truth which might show any lack of respect.
I also congratulate you for censoring any mention of the 28gate scandal, which proves that the BBC has been deliberately lying to us to promote the global warming scare, despite it having gone viral in the blogsphere days ago. This is the attitude that has made British journalism what it is today. (put as another letter to them a few minutes ago)
Sir,
The defence of the BBC by Ian Bell on Wednesday amounts to saying "They are the great & mighty, government owned BBC, trust them, ignore the blogsphere behind the curtain".
He could hardly have timed it worse. On the same day newspapers first started reporting the BBC's 28gate scandal, which has been viral on the net for several days previously (the BBC has, as I write, yet to report).
This is a scoop obtained by co-operative investigative journalism entirely on the net. For 6 years the BBC have claimed that their censorship of any dissent on the catastrophic global warming issue was justified because they had held a meeting of Britain's 28 "leading scientists" who had agreed the "science" of catastrophic warming was unimpeachable. It was a blogger, Tony Newbery, who made an FoI request simply to know who had given the "best scientific advice." It was him, who kept up the pressure as the BBC refused to answer and brought in platoons of barristers, probably costing over £100k of our money, to prevent us knowing what the BBC insisted "journalistic ethics" prevented them making public.
It was another blogger who then found the list on the site of an environmental lobbyist the BBC had given it to.
It turned out that of the 28 only 3 were scientists, all paid tom promote alarmist. None had done "leading" work on the subject. The rest were an odd collection of Greenpeace (2) and other "environmental charity" activists, renewables salespersons, civil servants (including a US one) and a surprising number managing 3rd world "aid."
The BBC lied, repeatedly over a period of years to maintain a political propaganda position not justified by the evidence. Propaganda which has certainly cost the British people many hundreds of billions of pounds & by more than doubling electricity prices, brought us into recession and nearly 1 million Scots households into fuel poverty. It seems inevitable that much of the testimony given by a whole range of BBC employees in court must be untrue. The police who spent £2 million on prosecuting Sheriden must, on this issue where the evidence is so much easier to obtain, be equally diligent.
The Scotsman is much better. My letter to them is a response to Naill Stewart of Scottish Reneables & they have published 3 other letters taking him apart over the figures. Still I think my letter, which goes more to criticising the paymasters of warming propaganda (a subject which astonishingly never gets reported by the MSM) is a good one. Well I was amused by it.
Your reader Niall Stewart calls us global warming sceptics a "vocal minority" (letter today). Polls tend to show those of us who doubt catastrophic warming is evident are actually a majority.
However is he not thereby castigating himself? After all he is one the army of people who have, over the years, received hundreds of billions of pounds from government to promote warming alarmism, renewables, and other "environmental" scares and their expensive big government nostums.
If we sceptics are "vocal" compared to all that, are he and his chums, with the recent refusal of him or any other government funded alarmist to enter a public debate on the subject, not falling down on the job? Even despite his own regular appearances as a reader in newspaper letters across Scotland and equally regularly in news items.
Labels: BBC, eco-fascism, Unpublished letters
