Friday 4 December 2009 - in more detail

I was going to cut the relevant section, but it was pretty much the whole thing, so having read all the above...

'Oh... the inhumanity!'

The BBC is still grudgingly awakening to climategate, and this is what we get?

Unique.

...Given the size of the national debt..

it should be called the bankers debt to constantly remind them who has crashed the uk more successfully than any terrorist could?

the debate about climate change should focus on why those promoting man made change are also making money from carbon exchanges into which every person who has an energy bill is paying. seen your bill recently? monetising carbon in the belief the 'market' will sort it out has to be the height of delusion? why does the govt stay addicted to this false belief?

market stall? did he have the obligatory insurance?

GREAT BRITAIN PLC - INEPTLY MANAGED AND TRADING INSOLVENT.

We watch the Milibands - beloved of James Gordon - having 'bestowed upon them' positions of authority and decision-taking THAT NO COMMERCIAL COMPANY WOULD COUNTENANCE. Time and again we hear the trite terminology: 'Great Britain plc'; were that anywhere near the truth, those words would be followed by: 'IN RECEIVERSHIP'. Great Britain plc TRADED INSOLVENT, with Brown as Company Secretary (that should have put him in jail) and is now broke beyond belief.

The shareholders (us) have been tricked, over and over by The Board, such that OUR votes don't count (perhaps you noticed). When election of board members comes round, they use our money to bribe us, entice and frighten us, into keeping them on.

Sadly, there is no 'Hague' for STATE BUSINESS CRIME.

gordon name calls people 'flat earthers'.

as anyone on the boards know people who name call only do it because they have no argument.

Gordon can't explain the emails, he can't explain why those promoting carbon trading as the mechanism also own the exchanges and he can't explain the climate religiosity which seems to be behind the need to 'crucify' anyone who is not a believer?

a cult is about mind control

'groups that have been characterized as cults are at high risk of becoming abusive to members. He states that this is in part due to members' adulation of charismatic leaders contributing to the leaders becoming corrupted by power. Zablocki defines a cult here as an ideological organization held together by charismatic relationships and that demands total commitment'

'A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc.) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

So nothing tonight about Corus "mothballing" their plant at Redcar and dumping 1700 workers three weeks before Christmas?

The line on this is quite dubious, focussing on the "human interest"; but we need to know who the four members of the consortium are who have broken the terms of their supply contract.

Was one of them Tata Motors of India?

And why are we not nationalising Corus Redcar? The globe does not need raw steel? I think it does, y'know.

Never mind, let's hear about pop ups; all the rage on Teesside.

As a sign of how polarized this debate has become: to rephrase part of a comment above. #4

' the climate religiosity which seems to be behind the need to 'crucify' anyone who is not a 'sceptic'?

The climate debate has turned into a Christmas panto; 'Oh yes it is, Oh no it isn't'. A scientific debate it currently isn't.

I hope peoples' blood will cool over the next few months. I support a full inquiry BTY; it might focus peoples attention on the actual science rather than pre-conceived prejudices.

Still, I think this gives a flavour of the debate Darwin's books provoked in late Victorian times.

In common with most of the BBC news output today yet another damage limitation exercise on the behalf of the eco-fascists quasi-religion by Newsnight. The Corus closure today is only a taste of what will happen to energy dependent industry in the UK if the Copenhagen deal goes through in any form. Why do the pro AGW scientists still attempt to portray that the arctic ice is shrinking when the evidence clearly shows it is now growing ?

It would appear that the BBC sci / tech link on this fact earlier in the year ( September ) has been conveniently deleted from casual searches like any UEA data which potentially damages their Corporate Nazi climate change scam. This took a bit of finding but:-

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8261953.stm

Anyway, perhaps the arctic ice is thin due to a lack of snow falling on it, and receded far more due to alleged climate scientists attempting to open up a lucrative North West passage. I suspect that there could be a time lag between the ice growing and the onset of global cooling due to less recorded sun activity.

Meanwhile the possible bill to the taxpayer of the bank bailout has been put at £850BN, of course this is today's estimate, if we look at the US, losses today are estimated at a possible $23.7TN, which if we took that model would put our losses of at least £2TN, which is unpayable, if they print the money, they destroy Sterling, if they don't they destroy the banking system, if they back the banks, the government will be bankrupt, there is no way out of this now, we are like Wile E. Coyote off the end of the cliff, legs still spinning, waiting to plunge into the chasm.

"what an (you heard what he said)" well I heard the comment from the University of East Anglia spokesman I also heard him say we "tweek" figures regarding global warming, who really came out of the debate looking like an (what he said)? in 10 years time when global warming is laughed about like mad cow disease and bird flu, I just hope someone remembers who these scientists where who tried to make their name jumping on the scare mongering band wagon.

Do you not think that Newsnight loses credibility when it Martha Kearney gives the pro-global-warming interviewee three times more air time than the global-warming sceptic?

About the emails from the university of East Anglia.
How do you choose the people you interview? With a sense of responsibility present how can you give air time to someone like the one you call " a sceptical voice from the US". Moreno, was that his name? What an ignorant person with no scientific insights and only there because he likes to be in front of a camera?
Presenting people who deny reality as equal partners in a discussion as important for humanity as climate change, is that what you are doing? Couldn't you find anyone more credulous?
Those scientists at East Anglia need their fingers rapped, that's for sure. They need to be reminded about the proper scientific process and the responsibilities their positions bring with them.
You really could have done better.

Well I would like to thank the professor for his sane and reasoned contribution to the debate. I also greatly appreciated his concluding comment. Perhaps other people find the truth uncomfortable

PERFECT SUMMATION - GLORIOUS IMAGERY (#8)

In a word: the ACME of perfection. (:o)

Climate change: Never mind the rights and wrongs of it, I haven't enjoyed such a hilarious altercation for ages. But who was the stuffed shirt who told Martha to apologise for the last remark?

"Sane and reasoned contribution" from the professor?

I don't think so.

Besides which, global warming is not the real issue - despite the attempts by Ed Balls and others to pretend that it is.

The REAL issue is whether or not WE are responsible for it.

If we are not responsible for global warming, then billions of dollars which could be used for good environmental purposes will be wasted.

Even "Bishop" Monbiot has been outraged by the contents of the THOUSANDS of emails now available for all to see.

ARE YOU SURE HE'S A BISHOP? (#15)

Monbiot always strikes me as a 'tight' Cannon.

What a poxy stall indeed, Martha! He didn't even answer the question I was interested in .... as proud owner of a 1989 BBC Scotland postcard signed and dedicated by an ever-young Kirsty Wark! How much am I bid -
for insurance purposes only, you understand .... I was given this as
part of my 'survival kit' by colleagues on leaving the Strategic Issues Section of Strathclyde Regional Council which Kirsty used to phone-up
for information everytime there were steel industry closures .... The
'survival kit' also included a wee book on the sex life of the butterfly
(all we were officially allowed to talk to the BBC about in those days!),
a piece of coal from the old Sorn drift mine in Ayrshire (with a note reading 'See you in Court!' signed by 'Scotland's worst Labour Cooncillor' as the leaked report described him after he had aided and abbetted premature closure [allegedly!] by complaining to the NCB about the sparky quality of the coal from Sorn he got as a former miner - and
telling journalists that 'oil is the future' by way of explanation for the district council converting their central heating system away from coal despite it being in the middle of a briquette works in Lugar ....
and there was also a bag of marbles ... apparently lost along the way!

The Corus news is indeed bad - and our thoughts are with Redcar tonight.

May I just congratulate the professor in summing up climate change deniers in one amusing sentence.

And as for the nonsense above claiming "Martha Kearney gives the pro-global-warming interviewee three times more air time than the global-warming sceptic?", what? That Yank wouldn't stop SHOUTING, he came over as a boorish, loud mouthed ignoramus and the professor's parting statement was all too accurate (and said with impeccable comic timing i might add).

I haven't yet watched any of last night's Newsnight but wanted to say how sorry I am that the clever and humane brightyangthing seems to have given up on sending her thoughts and musings for us to ponder about and contemplate on.

As sometimes people have thought the name was bright young thing rather than b. yang th., for those who don't know what the concept of yang stands for and would be interested to find out here's a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

mim

I have found another link, this time regarding a research paper by CTC, Combatting Terrorism Center, based in New York.

As the findings speak for themselves, here's the link:

https://www.ctc.usma.edu/Deadly%20Vanguards_Complete_L.pdf [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

#20

I didn't realise I was breaking the House Rules but with the name of the organisation quoted, there's nothing simpler to do but to open the CTC website where the article can be found.

Hopefully, once I've had a look at a bit at least of last night's Newsnight, I might be able to post my comments in a rhymed fashion.

Good point charleshenrywilliams #15

It is indeed a question of whether WE ( man ) are responsible for global warming and no doubt we leave our fingerprint if not through CO2 but simple waste heat. Of course if global warming was entirely due to CO2 the planet would still be getting warmer when all the true evidence suggests the globe is cooling more recently.

Gordon Brown refers to " flat earther's " but its not the first time in history that top government scientists have been proven completely wrong. Take the " great stink " and the cholera epidemics in London in the mid 19th century and the introduction of the sewer system. Government scientists were convinced that cholera was caused by miasma, noxious exhalations or bad air. A local GP ( John Snow ) had scientifically worked out the probable cause ( contaminated water ) and successfully stopped a local cholera outbreak by removing the handle from a particular stand pump.

Despite Snow's clear evidence to demonstrate the cholera was due to contaminated drinking water supplies the government scientists continued to blame miasma and dismissed Snow as a crank. The new sewer system got built anyway but the cholera did not completely go away, it was not until after Snow's death that the top government scientist admitted that Snow had been right all along.

I didn't have much problem making a rhymed comment about the 'climate gate' saga having now watched Newsnight. Here it is:

Good on Prof Watson for speaking his mind
Who with Ed Millie seems to be right.
One study having been hacked to
Cannot change the course
Of serious discussion about melting poles.
The hope remains that there are spare copies
Untouched by hackers for others to see,
Or at least the data remains quite preserved
And recovered quickly throughout the weekend.
If it turns out not to be the case
Then it is a lesson how to keep spare records
In safety with sense.

Plus, I liked Steve Smith's piece about pop-up enterprises which do seem to have and create extra energy in the high streets. Can't see anything wrong with that as long as those enterprises do contribute to the taxpayers' purse, which probably most of them do.

If they are set up as charities and the money goes to where it should be then that's also great.

I skipped Paul Mason's piece as I didn't think much about the idea of those drawers with things being taken out of them and then replaced by supposedly a living doll, etc.

I should imagine that also could do with some investigation, just like the 'climate gate' is already undergoing.

No. The professor said nothing clever and nothing of interest. He just kept repeating that he trusted his colleagues not to distort the data.

He said absolutely nothing about the issue of GW being down to Man.

And the professor's final insult showed just how prejudicial and hostile he was towards the other interviewee.

He tried to hide this fact throughout - but failed to keep his big mouth shut right at the end.

The likes of Mr. Miliband are convinced that the "science is decided" on the Global Warming debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvDE4tvx-z8&feature=player_embedded

Fortunately, he and his world-saving boss are in total agreement. Or...er... not...

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p67m8 (last 10 mins is fun)

It must be true, 'cos it's on the BBC.

But, more often, if the BBC does refer to this issue, it is in terms of 'choices' that only refer to scary extremes of apocalyptic threats or benign dismissal that anything is wrong at all. Both lack credibility.

With the likes of Miliband I keep trying to nail down what he seems to have in mind in detail, beyond running around in circles screaming 'IT is coming. Give me all your money and I will solve IT'. What? How? How much? Etc, etc. And not being helped much by the BBC.

And the more shrill he, and his boss (and supporters) get in their denial (yes, I use this term much as I find it as pejorative as it was/is inaccurate to describe those with questions on the total commitment to the AGW dogma - after saboteurs and flat-earthers what next? Fifth columnists?), the more concerned I get.

There seems to be a view by those in power (currently), that the public is 'wrong', and that this is nothing to do with either their message or their competence in sharing it. That's deluded enough. But then there are dark mutterings that 'they' need to 'deal' with any who seem unimpressed with their plans and demands for total fealty to the cause.

That, for me, is the big issue now.

And while the CRU data is a major aspect of assessing decisions and expenditures proposed to 'mitigate', it is but a small aspect of the totality.

As for the BBC's role, having watched Newswatch just now, starring an unsurprisingly defensive Richard Black, it was rather typified by some senior bod who followed the usual bunch of waffle with an odd phrase:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/video_and_audio/8396579.stm

Dept. Director of News Steve Mitchell:

'I am happy to say that... with hindsight... we probably should have featured it, earlier, more prominently.'

Oh, that's OK then. You screwed up (still doing so). You're happy. Evidently still not very professionally concerned. Moving on....

Meanwhile, that lightweight Miliband is heading off to a meeting of mediocre minds to see how to push some money around in the name of green that I, for one, remain unclear and unsure is going to do a darn thing to help my kids to a better environmental future and doesn't look great on their economic ones (bearing in mind they'll be forking out for ever just to cover Mr. Miliband's gold plated pension and a few other fiscal commitments he and the rest of Gordon's GOAT herd are learning lessons about). Yet the BBC is still in catch up mode merely on a bunch of folk arguing about absolutes.

Oh, and President Obama is now coming on this day and not that day as the expectations management team hone in on how things will look, and the heck with what it all portends.

A friend told me last night that he may not be watching, although I don't yet know whether he did or not, last night's Newsnight as he finds it difficult to cope with Martha Kearney smiling all the time.

It pains me to say it but I do have suspicions about whose side she is on. Sometimes I think she takes the side of people like jauntycyclist but do sincerely hope that she doesn't.

I think I better leave it at that, especially that I did see her live giving a great speech at the Media Society Gala Dinner on 23 April when Jeremy was receiving his Award for the most outstanding contribution to journalism in 2008.

If she does side with jauntycyclist she is making a very serious mistake.

NON-GOVERNMENTAL INTERNATIONAL PANEL on CLIMATE CHANGE


Google NIPCC

Is Susan embedded in the official narrative?

Will Magic Obama need a giant plane?

#19
Mim

How nice to be missed though you perhaps do a disservice to many thought provoking posters with much of value to say.

I have been dipping in and out, but sadly we suffered a close family bereavement near Leeds (we are near Aberdeen) mid week and I have had little time to view, ponder or post on NN or current affairs.

Once the next week is past, I do hope, in the words of Arnie ........
"I'll be back"

Thanks for the update, Brightyangthing. Sorry to hear about the family bereavement but as far as the 'thought provoking posters with much value to say', I skip most of them, I'm afraid. They are banging on about the same thing again and again, it's become too boring for words.

I've just been correspoinding with a friend and spoke to him about Peter Brook who I'd met when I was about 21/22 in Wroclaw and about a film of his, i.e. 'Lord of the Flies' based on a novel by William Golding. Although seemingly off topic, I would recommend it as a study in cruelty. Here's the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies

and a link about Peter Brook:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brook

I was particularly struck by a title of one of his works which 'Le diable c'est l'ennui' which I would translate as 'Devil is boring' but I may be wrong.

Nos 29 and 30

'thought provoking posters with much value to say'

I think Mim may also be referring to the past posts before you were posting on here and the effect the poster Jaded_Jean has on the blog and other posters. That history at least informs the reply (30) and is understandable. The fact that the BBC allowed it to go on for so long is still a bit troubling to me.

That photo of Amanda Knox behind the bars is something.

#31

Quite right, Streetphotobeing

I've just had some info from Norton Security telling me that in the last month my Philips laptop has been threatened 113 times with 37,936 detected. 8 e-mails were blocked. It has been attacked 2,250 times with 109 sites having been identified. I'm sure this info is stored safely by the company should I need it in the future.

That's the price of going transparent but I think it has been worth it, not that I want to spend the rest of my life in this fashion.

I'm thinking of responding to jauntycyclist's #4 being quite convinced that it is jj hiding behind this name. I shall do it once I've tidied up my bathroom and have done my washing up, etc

Trust me i'm a scientist

clearly the scientist was rattled. his end comment marks his arrogance that he displayed throughout making childish faces and comments. which is hardly 'rational debate'? or maybe what passes for rational debate on campus.

scientists do not take an oath to 'do no harm'. unquestioningly make them your priests at your peril.


Rich man poor man beggar man....

given the deficit is being caused by one class of workers they should be the ones to pay the most? yet they seem to be touched the least?

the left want to use the bankers [not public] deficit as a trojan horse to attack 'the rich' and the tories want to us it as a trojan horse for 'tax and spending cuts'.

The Art of Climate Change

is how to make money out of it and rule the world.

the map we need is how a small umber of people who have a vested interest in using their 'solutions' create an art of projection as if upon a wall they make a shadow show for the children to watch.

perhaps the first part of this map is found in articles like this

''In 1991, Maurice Strong, a key developer of global warming scare and one of the original members of the Club of Rome came out with the report - “The First Global Revolution”, which stated : “It would seem that humans need a common motivation...either a real one or else one invented for the purpose....In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Also, way back in 1974, Maurice Strong gave a speech at a college in Canada at which he said: “The ethic of abundant resources must give way to the ethics of scarcity and conservation” … “Economic growth is not the cure, it is the disease” He also said: “Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."

https://www.mindanaoexaminer.com/news.php?news_id=20091204091052

which fits in with the climate change religion that man is a 'sin' and his sins must be punished through the carbon trading tax.

and so we have the art of a myth that has been cooking for decades whose aim is to achieve global governance and fund it through a global carbon tax.

Who should be the 'new leaders' in this global governance?
As it happens maurice strong founded Crestone that was to establish a sustainable, interfaith retreat community where there just so happens to be 'leadership courses'

https://www.transition-dynamics.com/crestone/7seminars.html

maurice strong, architect of carbon trading and climate change promoter, doesn't like too much democracy?


'Our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions."

In his BBC interview, he famously asserted that the Western democracies needed to consider "licences to have babies."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/maurice-strongs-authoritarian-saviour/article1367576/

#33, #34 & #35

Oh, what a lot of nonsense, jauntycyclists.

Have you already taken one of M. Strong's leadership courses? Are you planning to rule the world? I'sure the world can't wait for you to do so, lost as it is without your help.

Humanity has often been at fault but not all the human beings all at the same time. Of course, there is good and evil, spiritual and base/vile, peace loving people and those are not but anyone like yourself pretending to have found a solution, clearly have no insight into their own minds and delusions, never mind of into that of another.

climate justice

never heard of it? you will do because you are going to pay big for it. if because you are watching NN and creating co2 then that is why [according to man made climate change logic] people are dying in africa from lack of rain. which means under 'climate justice' you will be taxed to compensate them and provide mitigation.

this will be done through the world bank which is already being called 'the climate bank'.


we read in an article by former president of Ireland Mary Robinson and Senior Fellow at the Miller Institute Alice Miller

'these important steps will bear fruit only if we create a global network of actors committed to the goal of climate justice'

https://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.11669.aspx

if we create a global network of actors...mmm.. where have i heard that before?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

36...anyone like yourself pretending to have found a solution...

what are you on about mim?

i have no idea what 'solution' you are talking about

i am exposing those who would have us sign up to their climate change cultish vision of the future. exposing those who are promoting carbon trading as the 'solution' and thus will profit by it.

i understand people with vested emotion into that cultish view will be obliged to name call [e.g flat earthers] those who are not believers and question. it seems name calling is the only argument they have left?

#39
you're only pretending now, jauntycyclist, that you are one of the good guys.
I'm sure you're beginning to feel the wrath. The World Leaders know exactly who you are, including the Russian guys who may not be very pleased with you any more. That's my impression anyway.

It's not a threat on my part, it is the truth. I have ways of knowing what they are thinking.

40

not sure why you are bearing false witness [again].

does anyone know what she is talking about?

I've just had an advice from a friend advising me not to engage with the Newsnight bloggers and that's how I've responded:

Well, one reason I'm doing it to make it as widely known as possible and letting the World Leaders, or at least the vast majority of them, know that I know what they're thinking, including the newly elected, though not completely democratically, President Karzai.

I've also had an 'invisible' message from the Russian President, Mr D Medvedev. My links with the President of the USA are well known and documented so I shall not mention what he's been thinking in the last couple of days. It looks like the Polish President, Mr Kaczynski is just about finished as a politician, by his own party, in fact, if not by the voting Poles. Gordon Brown's and Peter Mandelson's hold of power is hanging on a whisker, etc, etc

Copenhagen summit: Denmark rushes in laws to stop carbon trading scam

...police and tax investigators across Europe are believed to be investigating hundreds of millions of euros worth of fraud involving carbon quotas originating in Denmark.

The Danish government today said it did not know how much money it had lost to the fraud but the number is likely to run into hundreds of millions – if not billions – of kroner.

Europe's carbon market is worth about €90bn a year. It is a combination of futures and spot trading and it is the largely unregulated spot market that was targeted this summer by the fraudsters.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/copenhagen-summit-carbon-trading-scam


unregulated? tut tut.

Just watched the climate march.

Seems good natured, and a bunch of folk who care enough about the future to express their fears, and hopes. Great.

There are things to be concerned about, most of which I share, and all have a right to express their views.

Speaking of which, we then cut to one Miliband. E, who would seem to think Senator McCarthy had a point... what's with the 'saboteurs!' strategy? 'Are you having, or have you ever had the slightest notion that some of this doesn't quite settle up as we say the science does?'

Senior pols rushing about looking for 'deniers' under the bed and rabble rousing against any who are not 'with the program' is not a healthy political direction to take, IMHO.

i have come across one line of thought that since the fall of communism people asked where have all the lefties gone? some say into climate activism because through it they hope to promote their agenda of 'imagine there is no countries' agenda without appearing to be communists.

this is why for them climate change is not enough. there has to be weird extentions into things like climate change justice, climate change rights , climate change this and climate change that and centralised control through 1 institution locking everyone in.

they thus gain political and economic control through the means of climate change and its instrument carbon trading without any democratic mandate.Self appointed 'leadership' groups will run things and decide global policy.


if this is where the 'lefties' have gone and it does seem dominated by lefty types then they will use the the methods of the left which was 'equality through terror'. things like name calling on one hand and the gulag system on the other extreme.

so this seems another aspect one can consider to the new religion.

it cannot be a coincidence the tirade of name calling going on? it seems they are panicking?

If Marc Moran is a 'leading' climate change sceptic, then we have no cause to worry. His near-hysterical garbled performance is best explained by the fact that he was confronted here by someone who clearly knew the scientists had far greater integrity than Moran could ever aspire to. Professor Watson simply goes to the trouble of knowing the evidence about climate change and, well done Newsnight for keeping in his withering judgment of Moran - based upon, as always, indisputable evidence!

I do not want to get involved in the climate change debate. As this latest blog shows, there is already far too much emotion involved. However, for the record, I trend to think that global warming is likely to be the case, though - as with all such complex subjects - the picture is at best confused. But, in any case, the sensible decision is to assume that it needs to be addressed.

However, I am far more worried by what the UEA has done to academic values - and the trust we have in science.

At the very least the UEA work reported in the media seems to have been sloppy. The example of computer code shown on television may have been atypical, but it was just about the worst - amateurish in the extreme - that I have seen. At worst it does seem that there was a culture of deliberate misinformation. The claim that they were merely 'tweeking' the results - albeit to to overcome embarrassing anomalies - does not meet Popper's requirement for the need to seek falsifiability; and brings into disrepute the scientific credibility of those involved.

More important, however, it clearly illustrates a developing trend whereby the professions in general have allowed themselves to be politicised. It used to be the case that professionals were proud to uphold the standards of their professions; not least putting truth above personal gain.

Now we have bankers motivated only by naked personal greed, accountants advising their clients on the most effective creative accounting, sociologists (and especially economists) using statistics to distort the picture to support whatever side they are backing, and finally now it seems a complete university research department desperately trying (at least in front of the media) to cover up the dubious practices of its leading funds (and status) earner.

What happened to professional values?

46. At 4:03pm on 05 Dec 2009, Johnthepoet wrote:
If Marc Moran is a 'leading' climate change sceptic, then we have no cause to worry.

Not sure who the 'we' is, but I agree that Mr. Moran was a less than stellar advocate of whatever sceptical position he felt he represented.

I'd never heard of him before. Which rather begs the question as to what the processes are that inform and decide Newsnight's producers when booking its rather inevitable heat over light 'twofers'.

Maybe the same that SKY used to generate this?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbaIbsKHiW4&feature=player_embedded

The very rude treatment of Mr. Miliband in the final piece rather makes the point on where our media guardians' priorities lie. Even the BBC would drop 'climate change' in a heartbeat if there was a juicy Westminster story to chew on. MP's expenses obliterated any climate coverage for months.

But that said, I am intrigued by the notion Mr. Miliband seems very keen on stirring up, and raises often in his commentary, that there are people out to 'wreck' the Copenhagen conference.

I certainly don't want to see that. But equally I do want it to be as well informed as it can be, and certainly not viewed as carte blanche for those who do like playing with others' money (often not wisely, or well) to bet the farm on some stuff that remains pretty unclear to me still. Especially when they keep saying the science is settled and I am hearing a bunch of others (even, now, on the BBC) saying something else.

In that whole interview (until cut off), I got no sense of anything tangible. Still. Pure waffle. Plus several claims that are, at best, hard to credit. Plus the ongoing attempt to make this an extreme 'either' or equally extreme 'or' scenario. It was noticeable that between the interviewer and the Minister, one was keen to promote 'climate change' as 'IT', while the other did valiantly attempt to introduce the rather key extra aspect that it is man's impact upon it where the debate rests. Arguing about whether it's a mild winter is plain daft, from any 'side'.

So what, exactly, is 'an agreement on climate change'? What does that mean? Yet this is what so many well meaning folk are protesting for, but I often suspect with no clue as to what goes with all that.

And sorry, my questions arise as a consequence of the MSM, and my national broadcaster, being quite ra-ra behind a rallying cry that is indeed important, but staying vague on any more. And that's why, for me, questions remain.

Even if that gets the goon squad ramping up its 'saboteur!' rhetoric.

Recent history suggests the 'bums rush, too late now, done deal' mode of government is one the current administration is a tad too addicted to, and seldom works out quite the way I'd vote for... given the chance.

48. At 4:59pm on 05 Dec 2009, you wrote:
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.

I shall be intrigued as to the reason. And while rightly never to find out by whom (internal second thoughts or proxy 3rd party sensitivity?), will always pause to ponder the speed with which it got referred.

Surely not for agreeing that guests seem more chosen for their ability to create controversy over making a valuable contribution to viewers' understanding through polite, informed debate?

Or for offering some instances when national leadership has problems with getting beyond rhetoric?

WHEN IS A SCIENTIST NOT A SCIENTIST?

I wonder if we are confusing geeky computer modellers, with fine, balanced minds? The trustworthy scientist needs as much self-understanding as the profoundly able psyco-analyst. Both rare as a stable climatic configuration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idYdVQ6nwfA&feature=player_embedded#

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VDDNgl-UPk&NR=1

JunkkMale #49

It would appear that the thought police are particularly touchy this evening, perhaps they are desperate to suppress any ideas that challenge the accepted " Corporate Nazi " ideology on climate change so close to Copenhagen. Perhaps in particular anything that suggests that environmentalism has become a new age religion.

52

this one makes some important points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idYdVQ6nwfA&feature=fvw

in particular that true science is linked to doubt and scepticism.

religions have no doubt in their dogma.

today climate cult dogma says there is no doubt about what is causing climate change. any who do doubt are name called. just like they would be in a religion.

for some climate may fulfil a religious need they cannot get elsewhere?


also carbon trading was set up before the financial crash when people still believed the markets are the most efficient mechanism or arranger of human society. we all know different now. yet they still keep pushing this monetisation of carbon in the belief the market will solve climate change. why? isn't it delusional to think that?

yet we are all paying into billions [collectivity] in this false idea through our bills. no one is going to give up that easy money without a fight?

jaunty #54

The mods must have done a shift change or something, I tried to post your link and it got referred almost instantly, anyway its there in the public domain now. Channel 4 news was quite interesting, top UK scientist attacking Browns position on science in general, perhaps anyone interested can catch it in about half an hour on 13.

https://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:OeBA98u7Ug0J:www.qwmagazine.co.uk/Issues/Issue%25202.pdf+prof+phillip+scott+london+uni&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

The BBC are still busy defending the man made Global warming scam.

Now admittedly I did once believe that man was solely responsible for the Globe temperature rise but when I finally decided to listen to what the "shameful deniers" were saying, I was rather upset that I had been so easily duped into believing this massive lie. Putting aside that more climate scientist are at the least very skeptical about this Man made global warming theory, for me at least the debate is over. I'm more interested in how this big fat lie was ever able to permeate into our collective consciousness and how this has culminated into turning us all into global Govt surfs on the back of "man made climate change". The primary aim of the globalist is to reduce the populations of the planet by starving the third world, this policy ironically supported by the lefty wefty/socialist who read the Guardian...religiously. They never allow their believes to be challenge, their own curiosity is never pricked enough into finding out what the others are saying counter to their believes, just like the three monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil, or speak no evil; these are the true deniers. A good example of this would be Newsnight's very own science editor susan watts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJS2OjZOCIM&feature=related

cookieducker

Capitalism is crisis?

brown praises 40k pro climate change protesters. yet they ignored 1 million stop the war march? must be nice to pick and choose.

again we get the flat earth jibe from gordon. yet the 'capitalism is crisis' gang are praised? whose language lends weight to the theory that the extreme left inhabit the climate camp?

given what we know about the origins of the climate campaign its hardly surprising the religions have got involved?

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8396696.stm

as for gordon i remember a time when he was just as critical over anyone who pointed out that financial regulation was necessary. Indeed the FSA admit they were beaten down every time they raised the subject?

which fits the pattern for this government

wrong over iraq, wrong over financial regulation and wrong over the climate through carbon trading.

but you can't reason with shinning eyed believers.

it seems some parts of the bbc are in tune with the thought curve even if it is 'unpopular'

.. Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, said: “It is interesting the BBC is prepared to tolerate him (Hudson) writing these things.

“It is a surprise – a welcome one - that the BBC has put it as bluntly as they have. More often than not they (the BBC) put forward the brainwashing views of CO2-driven, man-made climate change.

“Possibly some people in the BBC have worked out that the whole shooting match will collapse and they had better be ahead of the game.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6300329/Sceptics-welcome-BBC-report-on-global-cooling.html

the original Paul Hudson article

what happened to global warming

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

i see the Met office say it will take 3 years to review the data after the leaked emails.which should put the kybosh on copenhagen if this was rational but its not. gordon [and his lefty climate chums] has his mind made up and wants to bulldoze his opinions through to create a 'new world order'.

one again its the politicians behind the thought curve.

for something supposedly based on science it all seems highly political? which suggest it's not really based on science?

We are part of the planetary system. Climate is part of the planetary system. Climate changes. Therefore we are part of the change.

Both sides of the climate change debate or wrong, because there are no sides. And two wrongs don't make a right.

Barrie posts on 'flux'. This was part of the work of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. He of not being able to step into the same river twice because everything changes.

Carbon trading. Those campaigning for it are turkeys voting for Christmas. Absolutely no deal at all at Copenhagen.

THANKS FOR LINK BROSSEN (#52)

But has Susan or Limited Ed taken this on board?

Plenty of alleged " freedom loving " politicians up in arms protesting about the EU Lisbon Treaty yet virtual silence ( apart from Nick Griffin ) when it comes down to Copenhagen. The Copenhagen proposals are far more of a threat to the relative basic human rights of the UK population ( or anyone in a developed country with a similar cold winter climate ) than the Lisbon treaty could ever be. Perhaps its OK if you live in the tropics, its easy to survive with no winter fuel bill inflated by carbon trading. Copenhagen could force many relatively affluent people in northern climes to decide whether they are going to eat or heat. Winter cold already kills many people in the UK, with global carbon trading perhaps the total figure could significantly expand ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233537/George-Osbornes-brother-Muslim-marry-love-14-years.html?ITO=1490&referrer=yahoo

#62 Yes brossen99 an extra 37,000 old people died last winter because they couldn't afford to keep warm.

I think the climate is changing, why I don't know. I wouldn't come down on either side, natural or man made, who knows? But I do agree with all you that say it's all a bit of a con to get money out of us in "carbon tax"

I actually laughed out loud when I heard Prof Watsons comment at the end, that american bloke was just that, he shouted over everyone.

For a documentary which has a UEA climatologist confess (over fifteen years ago) that funding indirectly influences the findings of climate research, try to get hold of TVF's 'The Greenhouse Conspiracy', produced in the early 90s. TVF do not advertise the documentary on their site (for fear of risking unpopularity, no doubt), but it may still be available on request. The documentary shows why the science is debatable and possibly even manufactured. It also shows Margaret Thatcher cautioning the nation about climate change (!)

#63

An interesting piece of gossip info.
Thank you.

mim

#64
Ecolizzy

It was brilliant of Newsnight to have allowed Prof Watson's delicious remark about the screamer in the window to his left hand side. A memorable moment in the history of the BBC, I should imagine. Especially in view of the World Leaders having to discuss next week rather intimate details concerning what the hackers of the East Anglia University scientific research programme 'jokingly' mean by climactic change, although admittedly the whole saga may also have been backed for financial reasons by the anti-agreement lobby, hoping to destabilise the real problem of global warming, which may or may not be just a temporal bleep, like the one apparently in the Middle Ages, or indeed which, partly at least, may be due to man made industrial activities on our planet Earth.

Whatever the truth, it was an exquisite qui pro quo remark by Prof Watson.

I would back Mr Cameron as definitely against Gordon Brown in saying that background or class one comes from has any bearing whatsoever on whether one is a caring and basically decent person or not. Here is the link:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8397650.stm

Gordon Brown has had plenty of time to think about cruelty and torture inflicted by some treacherous members of the Security Forces but chooses to side with the perpetrators. No class whatsoever to speak of, I would say.

For a long time now, I've of the opinion that the Catholic priests should be allowed to marry. At least quite a lot of abuse could be avoided as per:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8397206.stm

#69 correction

For a long time now, I've been of the opinion that the Catholic priests should be allowed to marry. At least quite a lot of abuse could hopefully be avoided, etc

Plus:

In the left bottom corner on the BBC Homepage there is a quote trying to convince us that the 'hero', with regard to who I do not think I need to repeat, is an undeclared non-celeb. Yet another example of how the BBC is being manipulated by a few, or even specifically one, unwarranted self-promoting individual/s.

As oppposed to the saving grace of a Royal Prince:

A ruddy prince then bowed to hear
And my lips moved as he drew near.
"An ancient chant," he told his men, and then
Drew close to hear again
And I, my lips blanched blue with cold,
Groaned in his ear, "Woe and Behold!"

At this point, we will let the curtain fall mercifully upon this wretched work.

To view the source of this epic lay, visit the novel, Jewel of the Mind.

As per link:

https://www.literarylights.com/woe_and_behold.shtm

Wonderful stuff!

I've just been browsing through the Polish websistes. Having spoken about Mr Medvedev and Putin yesterday, I'd like to add that it looks like Mr Putin is making a shift towards warmer communication with Poland veering towards admitting to the truth about Katyn.

However, I do not think this shoul have any bearing whatsoever on my personal life and who I choose for friends. For me it works the other way round, being basically decent and friendly and then working together on this or that issue. Under no circumstances the other way round.

As I think I can now safely say that I am recognised as a real contributor to the life in this country as well as a transparent player on a global scale, it seems appropriate to mention that the conditions I live in make quite a bit of difference.

I have mentioned before that, for example, there is something wrong with the power pump and previously mentioned in PM's QT, waterworks, etc.

The pump, when turned on but not in use, produces unbelievable noises and sometimes makes the whole connection up to the attic shake which has now resulted in another leak from up here to the room below which is occupied by a young lady studying and training to become a highly qualified nurse.

With tears in her eyes, my landlady came up last night to tell me that due to all these goings on which are beyond her control I will have to move out. But as kind as she is, she will try and help me find a flat of my own. She may have got things wrong in the past and we have had quite severe misunderstandings at times, I have always known she would never throw me out on to the streets.

As much as it would be good to live on my own, it is a real shame that I'm being forced out of here, as all in all, we do live in mutual acceptance of one another's differences.

The reader is invited to draw their own conclusion from this particular story of mine.

https://climategate.tv/

#64 Ecolizzy

There are no sides. It is a Cartesian Reductionism that is being imposed on us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

We are part of the processes of the planet, climate changes. We are part of the change.

The climate debate both scientifically, politically and presented to the public in the media has been dumbed down. The important philosophical dimension has been ignored.

Celtic Lion

Nos 72

This may be of help :

https://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_family/housing/common_problems_with_tenancies.htm

I would also urge you to call the person you see every few weeks or so.

#75

Thank you so much for your advice, Streetphotobeing, but no, thank you. It's not my landlords' fault that the pump would like to come alive, etc

We'll cope, don't you worry.

I have been frank and open with my Social Worker, Alice, who's been absolutely wonderful, but I think we'll manage between us here.

P.S. Up until about 1.20 am this morning/last night, don't know which one is better, I've been in correspondence with Streetphotobeing via flickr

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#76 addendum

I blame it all on the people who are supposed to be in charge for letting themselves be duped by deluded nutters, with the nutters, of course, committing the original sin /in parentheses/ and who are ultimately most at fault. I suspect that at least one Government Minister has been actively participating in this sorry saga and aiding the nutters with glee.

78 - mim

Its good to hear you get on with your social worker and have better relations with your landlady. I hope they appreciate your need to be near the Queens Ice Rink with regards where ever you live. It obviously beneficial to your well being for you to practice ice skating.

Friday night noticed Martha appolgising for some swearing which my ears didn't discern, but I certainly heard it loud, clear and machine gun repeated on BBC 2 Saturday night. Why is it acceptable when it comes form certain sources and not others ? Alan Bennett described an incident with Russell Harty which frankly was revolting, humorous yes but also revolting. Why are some vile things in certain context acceptable and others condemned along with the authors being labeled. Would we think to label Bennett a bit of a pervert ? I should qualify that by referring to the said story Bennett read out but fear it would get removed.

You usually find the accepted ones are Oxbridge but not always

of course.

Being as you have referred my post nos 80, I should say that it has nothing to do with homosexuality but the context of acceptable behaviours - who judges them and how we respond within certain contexts.

#81 Streetphotobeing

My post at 77 has been referred to the moderators. I have had no email to say why.

here is the bizarre bit. It wasn't even a new post. It was one written a month ago which had been on the site since.

I just re-posted it here again as it was more relevant to today's news than it was a month ago. Today it was moderated.

It was on climate change.

Have you all read this today?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1233510/LIZ-JONES-Cynicism--s-default-setting-saggy-old-backsides-like-Jeremy-Paxman.html

the author of the article, Liz Jones, has had the audacity to accuse Jeremy's interview with Sting last week, as "patronising" and that "cynicism has become the default setting of those people who sit on their sagging old backsides doing absolutely nothing."

DISGRACEFUL! Grrrrrrr

Steelworks, Carbon Credits?

https://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article6945991.ece

One for brossen.

On a happier note, in today's Independent, Peter Rippon states:

"Jeremy is brilliant. For me he is priceless. He is what the BBC should be about. Why do people pay the licence fee? What do they want the BBC to be doing? If you ask those fundamental questions, I would say that Newsnight and Jeremy – what we do every night – is pretty valuable for the BBC."

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/newsnight-and-paxman-are-what-the-bbc-is-all-about-1834851.html
:o)

Not more emissions permits

"However, its emissions plunged in the Nineties as its economy collapsed and it now sits on a treasure trove of unused carbon emission permits that could be sold to other countries."


Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html

#85

Mistress76uk

Thank you for the link. It's really good to know what Peter Rippon thinks of Jeremy's contribution to the BBC and that he's not in competition with him. I've only browsed through the link as I'm out and using my iPhone but read the article in full to see what Peter Rippon's job entails.

#79

You're right, Streetphotobeing, it would be lovely to live closer to Queen's.

mim

Liz Jones wrote in the Mail:

"Why are the likes of Paxman attacking Sting, and not the global corporations that have been responsible for raping the world?"

I read the Mail but never bother with what Liz Jones has to say, my Sundays can manage without her. She normally trots out her hardship of having too much money, spending it foolishly and getting into so much debt to the point of having to tap her cleaner...then she gets paid for telling us all about it. (ok! I've read some of her stuff) But today, for once, I'm in agreement with her comments.

Paxman can sometimes be in default mode and it does show sometimes. Maybe he spends too much time at the studios. Maybe a refresher course is what Paxman needs in getting him out of his BBC bubble. Anyhow, So as not to invoke the wrath of one particular poster, I will say this. Pax is probably still the best interrogator the TV news media has. I know some say Jon Snow is comparable...er no! Snow's a hack and spells his name like one but when the likes of Liz Jones is having a dig, Pax needs to take note. Not that he needs our approval but if it was not for the little people - such as mistressuk - giving him the thumbs up, Jeremy would be all alone and unloved in this world because the folks at the BBC generally think he's a big headed ****!


disclaimer: that last bit..I made it up, there is no truth in those malicious rumours what so ever.

#83 Mistress 76UK


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1233510/LIZ-JONES-Cynicism--s-default-setting-saggy-old-backsides-like-Jeremy-Paxman.html

Two things to say on this link.

1st if you take the text out of context you get left with a CON. This article, in the Daily Wail (a paper in the habit of playing devil’s advocate) ACTUALLY begins with less than celebrator view of celebs paying politics and humanitarian.

Then, Liz Jones with some sympathy it appears to the more than capable of speaking for himself ‘Sting’ , reports he could “quite easily have stayed at home’ rather than undertake the interview. I’d second that. He didn’t because it was publicity and hey, did anyone notice he has a new CD out. Cynical? Moi???

Because of course, not inhabiting the real world, Sting would have no idea what to expect from an interview on a well known long running late night political programme let alone from JP, who incidentally I do think took the easy patronising and yes cynical and in the end largely self defeating and unsuccessful approach of attacking a rich celeb with a belief.

She then (and here’s the rub) herself takes the self same cynical, patronising and easy option of asking if JP has offset his children (I assume she knows how many – makes me think it must be at least a football team’s worth) by turning vegan or installing a solar panel.
Which is relevant why??????????????? There is an interviewer and an interviewee. If you want to question the morals, social outlook and more of teh interviewers/presenters, then get them on Parky.

So, here we have one journalist berating another for doing exactly the same thing. Offering lame comments that we’ve all heard before and are NOT relevant to the ISSUE.

#85 Mistress76UK
Yet again one tiny ‘lifted’ piece of text. Here’s another worthy perhaps of comment

“.... and a self-confessed BBC ‘lifer’,”

Not entirely sure that I see this EVER as a strong selling point. Less likely to be loyalty than ‘comfort’ – which is what NN has become. Too comfortable.

Then “......to provide vision, leadership and inspiration to the BBC's highly respected TV news show,” Some here may no doubt beg to differ.

Then later in the article Peter Rippon goes on to say
‘....blogging has been a disappointment: "I was very excited about it when I started, expecting to have a sophisticated conversation, but a lot of the commenting has been disappointing. It's more like school yard graffiti." ‘

What say you all to that?

#89 kevsewevsey
How do you know that Jeremy is thought of by the BBC folk as big headed? Are you an insider, i.e. are you one of the employees or just walk around the corridors collecting gossip?

Most people know how fond I am of Jeremy which doesn't mean I'm uncritical. However, when I attended the Media Society Gala in April when he received the Award for Outstanding Contribution to Journalism, all I could hear from quite a few top notch BBC people was praise and it sounded both enthusiastic and genuine. The praise was not only to do with his professionalism, and admittedly cheekiness, but also praise regarding Jeremy as a person and a caring colleague. I have said it before here but even Michael Howard who had got such a 'grilling' from Jeremy a few years back gave a great speech about him.

Unfortunately, when I occasionally feel slightly critical of this or that Jeremy says or the way he says things, although it was mostly in the past, I never say anything because I know that there are some very envious men around who would jump at every critical word I'd say and try and have a field day out of it or poke fun at what I may have said.

82. At 1:10pm on 06 Dec 2009, Roger Thomas wrote:
#81 Streetphotobeing
My post at 77 has been referred to the moderators. I have had no email to say why.

Now you mention it...

I've had a few whizz away. Happens a fair bit so I really didn't think too much (plus ca change...)

However, usually an email turns up eventually to explain why.

Not lately they haven't. Maybe it's going to another address on file as part of this registration 'upgrade'.

Or maybe this whole deleting data and going oops stuff is catching. Who knows?

It was on climate change.

So... I see Gordon's 5th column and raise him back the notion of a Ministry of Moderation. A thought police, if you will.

Could happen.

I am used to talking to mysel, so in answer to #91

Maybe the best I can offer is...........

School Yard Graffiti Output = School Yard Graffiti response.

#90

Brightyangthing

That woman, Liz Jones, has a muddled head. In one breath she belittles Madonna for wearing expensive clothes while in Africa setting up help for deprived little Africans and then defends Sting, who also wears expensive clothes, in his attempt to save the indigenous people in South America. It's a brave and long standing commitment with Sting but then I don't think she really listened to the fact that a renewable energy dam may also be beneficial to thousands of others. But then I do not have any specific details about the whole thing so will not even attempt to suggest a solution to the problem.

The whole set up of the interview was bizarre to say the least. How does a presenter interview a famous rocker who's sitting in a green basket like some kind of fairy creature or like a hen or a cuckoo on eggs? What particularly struck me to find out from the interview was that Sting is usually followed by an entourage of about 750 people. On one hand it's good he provides them with employment on the other all those people travellng by planes to and fro must produce quite a bit air pollution, etc.

P.S. That Liz Jones must have something in for Jeremy. She always writes absurd things about him, neither well thought out nor constructively critical.

..school yard graffiti..

so he is joining Kirsty the website slayer in dissing the online posse?

i feel we should have the right to respond.

so here's some to stick up on the NN loo wall

'Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but whips and chains excite me,
So... throw me down,
and tie me up and show me that you like me.'

kirsty might like this one

On a women's loo wall

My copy of "How to serve man" is missing. Has anyone seen it?.....


or maybe that should be the Politics Pen script notes?

roger

soon firms will be making more money out of carbon trading than doing their own business. the govt are handing out free money that is a wealth transfer from poor to rich. why doesn't the govt give us free carbon credits? because someone has to pay and it might as well be the gullable and ignorant. carbon is a stupidity tax by the rich on the poor.

anyone who supports carbon trading is in effect also supporting the mechanism by which the bankers brought down the country. No one now believes markets work as the best and most efficient arranger of a nations resources. yet they blindly believe when it comes to carbon trading that is based on the same model that is what it will do?

i was amazed at the amount of pro carbon trading/climate justice propaganda in the press this week. or perhaps one should not be amazed?

#91 & #94

I don't blame Peter Rippon for not participating in blogging here as a lot of it is produced by a school yard graffiti guys. I know it, I used to study there with almost dire and fatal consequences. I've been saved, however, partly by own inner strenght but also largely thanks to a few people who've seen the light, and what a relief it is to have finally got there.

Anyway, I don't see much wrong with 'lifers' wherever they work, as long as they keep abreast of things and fresh and open outlook on things.

I am one of the doubters that you describe, Brightyangthing, although all in all, there is still quite a bit real quality preserved in the show and luckily it hasn't become just a gimmicky puppet show. I don't it ever will, hopefully.

It's interesting to see how different people have different approaches to the same thing. Peter Rippon says he is a hands off guy and does not interfere with making of specific prrogrammes, which perhaps is a bit of a shame as some of the producers do seem to lose their way a little too often for my liking at least. Peter Barron seemed to completely opposite and by his prescriptive interferences made the journalists turn their backs against him, or at least Jeremy's back anyway.

mim

talk about pot and kettle

your stuff has the highest noise to signal ratio out of anyone.

#97 Jaunty

Totally agree with everything you wrote. I just can't get my head around all these people who supposed to understand something so much they go out protesting. But don't understand anything at all.

There is some superb media management going on. I think. Somehow the entire enviromental situation has been reduced to climate change. That has been reduced to CO2, that has been reduced to carbon trading.

So if you don't agree with carbon trading, you are a denier, a flat earther. The media is full of people without any indepth knowledge of planetary ecology. Permited to speak with authority about a subject they no nothing about. Just repeating the rhetoric from the last press release without questioning the substance.

One minute Ed Miliband is on TV answering questions about climate change. The next when he is asked a question about it he says he is not a scientist and cannot answer. He stance varies whether he wants to answer a question or not.

On NN he answered Ethical Mans questions but on Politics Show he wouldn't.

Anyway enough of my whinging.