cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
r3020
Senior Advisor

Climate change reporting exposed

Climate change is nothing more than progressive talking points to separate people and their money.

 

snip-

The indefatigable David Rose of Britain's Daily Mail, working with British  climate blogger Tony Newberry, has today exposed bias in news reporting of  climate change of a scale heretofore unknown, even for that  never-accurately-covered subject.

He reveals that, in a move orchestrated by the BBC itself and a left-wing  lobby group, the British government under the Labor Party paid for BBC personnel  to be taught the left-wing, pro-alarmist spin on climate issues for the specific  purpose of using the "news" as propaganda.

The seminar project was run by a BBC "journalist." A single seminar, paid  for by British taxpayers, cost 67,000 pounds (about $110,00).

What's more, after blogger Newberry noticed, in Rose's words, "a passing  reference" to the project "in an official report," the BBC spent at least 20,000  pounds (about $33,000) to keep the public from finding out.

This was done even as internal BBC documents bragged about the massive  influence the program had on the BBC's coverage of climate issues.

Go here  to read David Rose's story, which includes generous quotations of BBC personnel  bragging about how influential its corruption is.

Go here to  read Tony Newberry's Harmless Sky blog, where he has links to PDFs of damning  primary documents proving the case against the BBC and the British  government.

Some here in the U.S. may say, that's Britain, not the USA; in the United  States the government does not spend money to influence people's opinions.  They'd be wrong about that, but this corruption influenced us here regardless.  The media use each other as sources, and the BBC, very obviously, is a big  player and is one of those getting used.

Next time you hear or read a journalist talking about climate change, be  sure to double and triple check his information, preferably with primary  sources. Otherwise, you risk being told what to think by the British  government.

Been there; done that.

Read more:  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/amy-ridenour/2014/01/12/if-you-ever-had-any-doubt-media-biased-climate-...

23 Replies
NewAgJudge
Senior Contributor

Re: Climate change reporting exposed

 

Nope.

ollie2655
Senior Contributor

Re: so you agree---nonjudge

or you mean you wont study the truth or you cant understand it ----eithter way he jusy kicked your butt

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Climate change reporting exposed

There would have to be a motive. Got one?
KNAPPer
Senior Contributor

Climate change scientific articles reviewed by peers....

Not that you prefer scientific peer-reviewed papers to blogs and shady media to support your beliefs, but Lawrence L. Powell looked over  "peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors." In those, he only found one "single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming." In addition on his previous study he wrote, "My previous study, of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, found 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of those, I judged that only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming." His findings and list of articles and indeed their links are all posted in this article: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-...

 

Like I more or less said, I know you won't care and absolitely do not trust any scientist and likely do not even understand what peer reviewed means, nor what scientific journals are about, nonetheless, someone may care and some people want to underststand what is not within their direct knowledge. I am sure on the other hand, you would be pretty sure over 9,000 scientists are wrong, regardless.

 

There is no need for you to respond and tell me it is all fixed - I know you well enough.

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Climate change reporting exposed


@schnurrbart wrote:
There would have to be a motive. Got one?

Money.

BA Deere
Honored Advisor

Re: Climate change reporting exposed

Motive is a totalitarian regime, that`s how it would`ve happened to win the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, had they been living in the "information age".    In the meantime in present day America, the climate change hoax makes people like Algore rich, redistributes wealth from decent people to ponzi schemes like Solyndra, regulates farmers and breaks businesses.  Oh I know you don`t give a rat`s ass, but hey you asked. 

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Climate change scientific articles reviewed by peers....


@KNAPPer wrote:

Not that you prefer scientific peer-reviewed papers to blogs and shady media to support your beliefs, but Lawrence L. Powell looked over  "peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors." In those, he only found one "single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming." In addition on his previous study he wrote, "My previous study, of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, found 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of those, I judged that only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming." His findings and list of articles and indeed their links are all posted in this article: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-...

 

Like I more or less said, I know you won't care and absolitely do not trust any scientist and likely do not even understand what peer reviewed means, nor what scientific journals are about, nonetheless, someone may care and some people want to underststand what is not within their direct knowledge. I am sure on the other hand, you would be pretty sure over 9,000 scientists are wrong, regardless.

 

There is no need for you to respond and tell me it is all fixed - I know you well enough.


If they have proof they would publish their proof at not have to set up these kind of seminars.

 

snip-

The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds  over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has  shaped its coverage of global warming,  The Mail on Sunday can  reveal.

The controversial seminar was run by a body  set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on  climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC  reporting.

At the event, in 2006, green activists and  scientists – one of whom believes climate change is a bigger danger than global  nuclear war  – lectured 28 of the Corporation’s most senior executives.

Then director of television Jana Bennett  opened the seminar by telling the executives to ask themselves: ‘How do you plan  and run a city that is going to be submerged?’ And she asked them to consider if  climate change laboratories might offer material for a thriller.

A lobby group with close links to green  campaigners, the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT), helped to arrange  government funding for both the climate seminar  and other BBC seminars run  by  Mr Harrabin – one of which was attended by then Labour Cabinet Minister  Hilary Benn.

Applying for money from Mr Benn’s Department  for International Development (DFID), the IBT promised Ministers the seminars  would influence programme content for years to come.

The BBC began its long legal battle to keep  details of the conference secret after an amateur climate blogger spotted a  passing reference to it in an official report.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training...

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Climate change reporting exposed

I don't buy that. Al Gore got rich from being a partner to 4 other people who started a cable TV network and then sold it. Of course, he had money before but I don't see how climatechange made him rich. First you guys say Obama is out to destroy America but when you can't nail that down you start with this dictator/totalitarian BS. You are wishing these things would happen so you could play macho and fight for your country. You should have done that in the last 45 years!
schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Climate change reporting exposed

What was the motive when you said he wanted to destroy America?