Wednesday, December 12, 2012
28Gate - First Published Letter and 341st to 395th Unpublished Letters
Clark Cross had this in the Edinburgh Evening News last night.
Shocking bias from the BBC
I WATCHED, with growing anger, the BBC News reporting on the Doha climate change conference.
The BBC ran footage of icebergs and the mandatory polar bear and her two cubs.
I had not realised that BBC stood for “Biased Broadcasting Corporation”.
Since 2006, the BBC has claimed that its position of promoting the catastrophic global warming fraud and censoring the appearance of dissenters was justified.
The justification for this was that in 2006 a meeting of the country’s 28 “best scientific experts” had unanimously told them that there was no scientific doubt that mankind was responsible for climate change.
The BBC refused to say who these “28 leading scientists” were and spent licence payers’ money employing top barristers to prevent us finding out.
These names were recently leaked online.
So, who are Britain’s 28 “leading scientists”?
None of Britain’s 100 leading scientists are among them.
There is an MP, a Church of England dignitary, representatives from Greenpeace and Stop Climate Chaos, the US government, BP, those with vested commercial interests, people from the foreign “aid” industry and “environmental” activists.
The “best scientific experts”?
Such conduct would have embarrassed the Soviet Union.
Honest I'm not jealous. apart from anything else it was inspired by him having seen my previosu list of letters sent out 341 times - none of which were published.
I had also sent out this letter to another 55 papers in Britain and across the USA(including the EEN) saying that it would be a statistical impoosibility that they coyuld all remain unpublished by coincidence.
Clark said "That is a great challenge to the "free press" but will they duck it and prove you right??"
The letter was designed to be most publishable on Wednesday and Google News shows the "free presss" censored it. Case proven.
Censoring the news is one thing, though incompatible with a free press . But "readers' letters" which routinely are stiffed with letters from government funded sock puppets or people clearly employed by them, are supposed to be the sole part of a paper in which readers are allowed to express their opinions. Thus censorship of this area is even more disgraceful than censoring the news.
The argument over whether the Levenson proposals will interfere with a free press now seems irrelevent since we clearly don't have one.
And incidentally NOBODY from any of these papers has chosen to answer the question at the end which suggests they all know the answer and it is indeed that they are simply censoring.
Wednesday is one month since the news of 28gate went viral online. The BBC had for years claimed to have secured a list of 28 "leading scientists" able to give the "best scientific advice" on alleged "catastrophic global warming," "renewables" etc. which entitled them to break their Charter, and the law of the land, requiring them to be "balanced" in their coverage.
The news that broke was the identities of these "28 scientist". Only 2 were actually scientists. Those 2 and most of the rest were government funded warming activists. Also among the 28 were "renewables" salespeople, many international "aid" activists and, presumably to ensure the support of higher and from the Church of England and US embassy.
Departments across the BBC, even comedy, were involved. Thus almost everybody in the organisation knew that, for 6 years, the BBC have lied to justify being a propaganda organisation attempting to terrorise the entire population with a "catastrophic warming" story they knew was at least partly false, has failed for which no scientific evidence exists.
Since everybody in the country is a victim, the Climate change act alone will cost Britain nearly a trillon £s, and almost everybody in BBC management must have known it is thousands of times more important than the Savile scandal. Indeed I know of nobody who disputes it.
The BBC have censored any mention whatsoever of this news. The failure to report this news by other broadcasters (who are government regulated) and the rest of the press who aren't, is more remarkable.
250 words exactly
ref - cost of Climate Change Act http://www.tfa.net/2012/03/20/why-we-must-repeal-the-climate-change-act/
The Register online summary http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/19/the_virus_that_ate_the_bbc/
If you still choose not to report this news in your news columns or even continue to refuse to allow the publication of "reader's" letters on the subject I would be interested to know if
(A) you have any reason to dispute that it is indeed thousands of times more important news than the Savile scandal or
(B) have any reason, compatible with proclaimed journalistic ethics, for not reporting it?