Tuesday, December 18, 2012
28Gate Letters Unpublished By Dead tree Press, 1 Published by Spiked and AT Last The Express Breaks Ranks
An equivocal counter example is this letter of mine that Spiked did publish in response to an article on Levenson and how a free press is desirable. It directly criticises Spiked for having spiked any coverage of 28gate. Quite strange that they publish the rebuke for censoring the news but still haven't covered the news itself.
Possibly they are indeed under pressure to censor and this is their way of acknowledging it.
The question of how free the press is to tell us the facts (assuming it would like to be) can be determined by comparing the coverage given to the Savile scandal in which the BBC clearly committed sins of omission and the coverage of the far greater 28gate scandal where the entire BBC organisation knowingly and deliberately lied, for at least six years in an open attempt to promote totalitarian controls over us all.
With a relatively few honorable exceptions most of the press had censored, spiked or ignored any mention of a fraud to keep most people in Britain ignorant.
Neil Craig, UK
However the big news is that the Express has today broken ranks and admitedly in a downplayed way, reported 28gate as a news item.
Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation yesterday claimed that its coverage has been marked by “bias, ignorance and credulity” and has failed to measure up to professional standards.
In an open letter to Lord Hall, GWPF trustees Lord Lawson, Labour’s Lord Donoughue and Liberal Democrat Baroness Nicholson highlighted “28gate” – a BBC seminar that shaped its coverage of climate change.
It was held in 2006 between 28 senior BBC staff and 28 outsiders whom the BBC Trust later described as “some of the best scientific experts”.
After the meeting the BBC said the weight of evidence meant it could no longer justify giving the same space to climate sceptics as climate change advocates.
But the GWPF claims that only two of the outsiders were scientists.
The rest, it says, were mainly environmentalists or “non-scientists with a vested interest in promoting renewable energy”.
The three peers wrote: “So the BBC stands convicted not only of culpable imbalance but also of rank dishonesty.”
Downplaying by saying "the GWPF claims that only two of the outsiders were scientists. The rest, it says, were mainly environmentalists or “non-scientists with a vested interest in promoting renewable energy”. The lack of scientists isn't a "claim" but an observable fact and it wasn't just "the rest" that were activists with vested interests in alarmism (ie being paid by the state to promote it) - so too were the 2 scientists.
The BBC is quoted on 28gate "“The BBC’s climate change coverage is balanced and impartial" which, sincecv it is a considered reply matured over more than onme month o9f censorship, must be4 considered to be the very highest standard of honesty to which anyubody stil working at the BBC, under any circumstances, ever aspires.
As well as being a complete, total and deliberate lie which could never be told except by an organisation and individuals who were obscvene, wholly corrupt, parasitic Fascist filth withouit remoteely as much decency as the guards at Auschwitz.
People whom, by definition, no honest or non-Fascist "environmentalist" can fail to publicly denounce vas the obscene filth they are.
2 points of interest.
With the exception of one paid hactivist ALL the online comments are not merely supportive of sceptics but agree that the BBC is a merely a propaganda organisation and we should not be forced to fund it.
The picture used to illustrate it is a variant on the one used in my ThinkScotland article. Either this is an improbable coincidence or the sub-editor, at least, had read the earlier article.
My unpublished letters:
A leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits that the global warming we experienced between 1979 & 1996 can be explained by a mixture of solar radiance and the effect on cloud formation of changes in solar radiation. It may well have had nothing to do with CO2, which is in any case a desirable gas since it improves crop growth.
There has, of course, been no warming since 1996.
Meanwhile the BBC are still censoring any mention of them being caught lying about the "28 leading scientists" almost all of whom were activists with no connection to science, whom they used to justify their blatant breaking of their legal duty of "balance" in promoting the "catastrophic warming" fraud & their censorship of dissidents. This censorship of dissent has meant that UKIP, according to the polls Britain's 3rd party, has received 1/40th as much coverage per vote as the Greens which is clearly incompatible with true democracy.
Perhaps we will see the BBC apologise for their propagandising soon. At least before they start promoting the next false eco-scare. Over the last 60 years we have had literally hundreds of eco-doom scare stories, promoted by them, which has seen trilliions of £s spent by state functionaries. Not one of them has proven to be true.
When our MPs are considering Levenson perhaps they will remember that the free press, for all its faults, has proven considerably more trustworthy than the state owned broadcaster.
Neil Craig (14th Dec)
ref - IPCC leak http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100194166/man-made-global-warming-even-the-ipcc-admits-the-jig-is-up/
Bishop Hill on the breaking news http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/11/12/bbc-climate-28-revealed.html
The list of the 28 "leading scientists" http://omnologos.com/full-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-seminar-on-26-january-2006/
100 leading UK scientists listing http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/10/100_top_uk_scientists_revealed.html
By any standard by far the most serious scandal to have hit the BBC is 28gate. Having, for 6 years claimed that the BBC's blatant breaking of their legal charter duty of "balance" to censor any dissidents doubting we are experiencing "catastroophic global warming" it turned out rather than the 28 "leading scientists" only 2 could actually be called scientists - it was merely a group of general government funded activists - some not even "environmental" state funded activists. The BBC had clearly and deliberately lied (almost all depts of the BBC were involved).
It is now literally impossible for any informed and honest observer to deny that the BBC is a wholly corrupt totalitarian propaganda organisation, rather than a news one, willing to lie and censor continuously and deliberately for years in the state cause, because that is precisely what they have done. A consequence of this is that UKIP, the only party not to endorse spending trillions of £s fighting this fake scare, get 1/40th as much BBC coverage, per vote, as the Greens.
While this has gone viral online it is almost entirely absent from the press and of course wholly censored by the BBC. Clearly desperate efforts are being made to ensure most of people remain ignorant. Since this is such a major story and has gone viral online it is difficult to believe that competent print journalists and editors are unaware of it and yet it has gone largely unreported as a news story and even readers letters on the subject are almost all censored. We can only speculate why.
Neil Craig (17th Dec)
Perhaps you might like to say if there is any reason, in the drafting of this or previous letters why it is not published or alternately if there is any dispute that this is at least 1,000 times as important and newsworthy as Savile or alternately whether this is deliberate censorship in the totalitarian cause worthy of Mr Goebbels or Orwell's Ministry of Truth (based on the BBC where he worked) or alternately whether there is any other credible reason for suppressing coverage. and a letter sent out today which can't yet be said to have been cinsored by the entire press but lets just say I have faith in the proven standard of integrity of the scum. Sir,
My congratulations to the Express for reporting the news of the BBC's 28gate scandal which broke a month ago on the net. Particularly since it has been mysteriously & with an almost Soviet absoluteness, absent from the news sections of the rest of the press and even from letters sections which are nominally the reader's choice.
The complacency of the BBC in continuing simply to claim, after 28gate that their coverage of alleged catastrophic global warming is "balanced and impartial" is incredible. Not only have they "long ago given up any pretence of impartiality," to quote Paxman some time ago, but the proof that their claimed justification of bias - a symposium of the "28 leading scientists" - was also a lie since only 2 were scientists & they and all the others were government funded activists.
Such a public statement, written after they have had over a month to consider their position, must be treated as the most studied and highest standard of honesty to which the BBC aspire. It is also a lie. It is now impossible for any person with any integrity to continue to work for an organisation which has not only deliberately lied and censored for many years to promote a public scare they knew to be, at least largely, a lie but has lied and lied again to protect the original lie. It seems likely that Mr Savile, who was not involved in this scandal, was more honourable then the BBC average. Certainly this scandal is 1,000 times more important.
Legally the BBC are required to be "balanced." Since they are not they have clearly vitiated their own charter. Their bias on alleged catastrophic warming in turn ensured their reporting of party politics was immensely slanted. For example UKIP have received only 1/40th as much coverage per vote received, almost all critical, from the state broadcaster that the Greens get (almost all supportive). On many many other subjects, including illegal wars, their coverage involves slanting &/or censorship. This is clearly incompatible with true democracy.
If they have broken their charter they have no legal right to take our licence money. Moreover, under the European Convention on Human Rights it is illegal to force people to pay for propaganda they do not want.
The BBC must either be so reformed and freed from state money as to be unrecognisable or wound up.
Neil Craig (Sec, UKIP Glasgow Branch)
You may wish to delete the first paragraph & have may permission to do so.
You may also wish to continue censoring the entire news - thereby proving "inncmpatible with true democracy".