Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

Takes a huge swipe at the biased and PC BBC here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199104/Peter-Sissons-BBC-standards-falling--bosses-scared-it.html

As far as my own well-known area of interest is concerned:

In a wide-ranging attack, he also claims it is now 'effectively BBC policy' to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming. He says: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.

'The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.

'But it is effectively BBC policy... that those views should not be heard.'

Just as I thought... 

[albitz]

Nice one Nick,I intended to post this article myself this morning.
great minds think alike,or fools seldom differ?

[Nickbat]

Nice one Nick,I intended to post this article myself this morning.
great minds think alike,or fools seldom differ?

Definitely the former, Albs! 

[crazyjoetavola]

Takes a huge swipe at the biased and PC BBC here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199104/Peter-Sissons-BBC-standards-falling--bosses-scared-it.html

As far as my own well-known area of interest is concerned:

In a wide-ranging attack, he also claims it is now 'effectively BBC policy' to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming. He says: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.

'The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.

'But it is effectively BBC policy... that those views should not be heard.'

Just as I thought... 

.....only after it has been thoroughly masticated by the mother of deceipt and sharp practice that is our government and delivered to be spoon-fed to the populace through the daily spewings of its (BBC) editorial line, I would suggest

[Nickbat]

Takes a huge swipe at the biased and PC BBC here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199104/Peter-Sissons-BBC-standards-falling--bosses-scared-it.html

As far as my own well-known area of interest is concerned:

In a wide-ranging attack, he also claims it is now 'effectively BBC policy' to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming. He says: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.

'The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.

'But it is effectively BBC policy... that those views should not be heard.'

Just as I thought... 

.....only after it has been thoroughly masticated by the mother of deceipt and sharp practice that is our government and delivered to be spoon-fed to the populace through the daily spewings of its (BBC) editorial line, I would suggest

Sort of, Zulu. In fact, BBC policy on this was decided at a seminar called ‘Climate Change - the Challenge to Broadcasting’ and was held at the BBC’s Television Centre in White City London on 26 January 2006.

It concluded "The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change]."


Efforts to find out who these "scientific experts" were have been thwarted at every turn. Despite resorting to use of the FOI act, two years have gone by and still no names have been revealed. 

See: http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=165#more-165



P.S If you want to read the background to this story, don't click on the first text link as you'll get a 404. Instead, use this:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=109#comment-1518

[STMO999]

Nick's starting to turn me. I may have to come out soon

[Pitchfork]

Nick's starting to turn me. I may have to come out soon

He Lives! Praise be!!

[STMO999]

Nick's starting to turn me. I may have to come out soon

He Lives! Praise be!!

Hello matey

[Omega man 2]

I myself am not going to be biased on the subject of "global warming" so I'll present some evidance in support of the theory.

http://avangardisco.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/positive-proof-global-warming-underwear.jpg

[Nickbat]

I myself am not going to be biased on the subject of "global warming" so I'll present some evidance in support of the theory.

http://avangardisco.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/positive-proof-global-warming-underwear.jpg

 

[crazyjoetavola]

Takes a huge swipe at the biased and PC BBC here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199104/Peter-Sissons-BBC-standards-falling--bosses-scared-it.html

As far as my own well-known area of interest is concerned:

In a wide-ranging attack, he also claims it is now 'effectively BBC policy' to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming. He says: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.

'The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.

'But it is effectively BBC policy... that those views should not be heard.'

Just as I thought... 

.....only after it has been thoroughly masticated by the mother of deceipt and sharp practice that is our government and delivered to be spoon-fed to the populace through the daily spewings of its (BBC) editorial line, I would suggest

Sort of, Zulu. In fact, BBC policy on this was decided at a seminar called ‘Climate Change - the Challenge to Broadcasting’ and was held at the BBC’s Television Centre in White City London on 26 January 2006.

It concluded "The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change]."

Efforts to find out who these "scientific experts" were have been thwarted at every turn. Despite resorting to use of the FOI act, two years have gone by and still no names have been revealed. 

See: http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=165#more-165



P.S If you want to read the background to this story, don't click on the first text link as you'll get a 404. Instead, use this:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=109#comment-1518

[size=20]WHAT?[/size]

[crazyjoetavola]

Was thinking a bit more about this and here's some of the words coming to mind........




[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCJK_yDAeOM[/media]

[Nickbat]

Yes, Zulu, just the sort of language that springs to my mind, as well.

 

[Nickbat]

Mind you if that made you angry, try this from an enviro-nutcase in Vancouver:

"At the crest of the Burrard Bridge's sidewalk, where I stand, the cars roar by, each and every one of them going over the speed limit. To view them from the perspective of a pedestrian is to be struck by a couple of things. One is the sense of a car's mass, which is frightening; the other is the sense of one's own vulnerability in relation to it, which is even more frightening. The cars hurtle.

This, too: Almost every car contains only a driver. Car commuters (of which I am often one) may prefer not to see it in such terms, but the power and sense of entitlement a car confers is a political act, especially in an age of global warming, where every car trip is an incremental crime against nature.

This is the commuter's secret thrill -- the speed and ease and selfishness of a car -- because necessity very often has little to do with it.

Most people drive not because they must, since there are other ways to get around, but because they want to. The bridge doesn't just carry traffic, it carries addicts."

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Chaos+Mayhem+World+Know+Would+That+Such+Thing/1781459/story.html


You're all criminal addicts!!!

[size=16]WTF?[/size]

[crazyjoetavola]

Mind you if that made you angry, try this from an enviro-nutcase in Vancouver:

"At the crest of the Burrard Bridge's sidewalk, where I stand, the cars roar by, each and every one of them going over the speed limit. To view them from the perspective of a pedestrian is to be struck by a couple of things. One is the sense of a car's mass, which is frightening; the other is the sense of one's own vulnerability in relation to it, which is even more frightening. The cars hurtle.

This, too: Almost every car contains only a driver. Car commuters (of which I am often one) may prefer not to see it in such terms, but the power and sense of entitlement a car confers is a political act, especially in an age of global warming, where every car trip is an incremental crime against nature.

This is the commuter's secret thrill -- the speed and ease and selfishness of a car -- because necessity very often has little to do with it.

Most people drive not because they must, since there are other ways to get around, but because they want to. The bridge doesn't just carry traffic, it carries addicts."

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Chaos+Mayhem+World+Know+Would+That+Such+Thing/1781459/story.html


You're all criminal addicts!!!

[size=16]WTF?[/size]

........if I wasn't in such an introspective mood at the moment I'd put 15 rounds through this screen

The incredible thing is a lot of people have subscribed to this sort of guff only to eject it from the pit of their self-satisfied and oh so corrrectly fed stomachs in the hope of drenching the remainder of us with the bile they so readily carry.