Pete H. That comment came from someone at the FT - something along the lines of 'it might be fun to attack the BBC but shouldn't you be doing something else that would be more effective?' which gave GWPF the opportunity to talk about all the other work they do.
Thanks for the reply Josh, My comment was tongue in cheek!
Bish, Just been reading Sir Peter Jay's forward to Booker report. Interesting stuff but I do not agree with the his last bit! My mind says the only way to stop the bias within the BBC is to totally stop the public funding. It serves no purpose in these modern years. The BBC no longer produces propaganda for the government so put them all on a private payroll! One would think that the other newspapers may get a chance of adverts for jobs within the organization and the workforce would be reduced to a profitable level with the best qualified people for the job and they would have to, like I used to do, pay for my own pension in private industry. Seems to me that a lot of outside companies already produce the BBC programs now, the BBC internet content has adverts, so where is the problem!
I had Brady's problem at first, but by right clicking on the partially shown enlargement, saving to my pictures folder and opening it again from there, it works, and provides zoom button and 'hand'.
We have at least to be thankful that the UK worst storms and floods in living memory (in terms of loss of life) were prior to the full escalation of BBC's climate propaganda.
With sympathy to the current Scottish experience, nonetheless the 1952, 53, and 87 storms caused most serious loss of life (one of the 87 hurricane death's was a neighbour only two fields away killed by his chimney stack falling into his bedroom- the whole farmhouse was subsequently demolished and rebuilt), and the floods at Lynmouth 1952, and East Coast 1953 were even more deadly than the 2007 floods, of which so much global warming innuendo was trumpeted.
Interestingly there was an unusually balanced package about shale tracking this morning on "Open Country" on Radio 4.
Although there were a couple of fairly incoherent "is it worth the risk" type witterings from local opponents, the tone of the piece was remarkably even-handed and left you with a real sense of the importance of this breakthrough and its limited effect upon the environment.
A simple and effective way to attack the BBC is to simply do what others have done with NGOs that have lost their way. Stop paying them.
Unplug aerials, detune your TVs and spend the £145 you save on something more useful, like heating, or food. As an organisation with one of the largest carbon footprints in Europe based on it's staff, travel, transmitters and receivers, funding such a gross polluter should be stopped anyway. Cut it down to a more environmentally friendly SW radio broadcaster.
re concealing the findings - Lord "two hats" Turner (Chairman of Financial Services Authority) seems to be following the same pattern used in his work as Chairman the UK Climate Change Committee.
In Harry Wilson's report in the Telegraph this morning it states that "the FSA has to admit it has not fully investigated RBS failings. Lord Oakeshott was the first senior politician to publicly criticise the FSA's decisions last December not to publish the details of its 18-month investigation into RBS. "It is a great shame this report does not cover five of the critical problems leading to the collapse of RBS. In particular the poor quality of the capital of RBS raises questions about the auditors of the bank," said Lord Oakeshott, a Liberal Democrat peer. Lord Turner, chairman of the FSA, originally said the document could not be made public, but was forced into an about-turn under intense political pressure." Recognise a familiar pattern here? There is a parallel between trying to conceal or ignore the true facts of a situation, whether it be in the field of finance or climate, in order to continue with a chosen path (which also provides a lucrative career or two!) Perhaps trying to combine these two jobs has confused Turner, the poor chap. Perhaps he needs to concentrate on one or the other, or needs to be sacked as not fit for either.
Just looked up who else is on the Committee on Climate Change -to quote from their site- "The Committee is made up of experts from the fields of climate change, science and economics. It is chaired by Lord Adair Turner. The CCC also has a secretariat of 25 staff that conduct economic, scientific and social analysis and provide corporate support.
The members of the CCC are:
Lord Adair Turner David Kennedy, Chief Executive Professor Jim Skea Sir Brian Hoskins Lord Robert May Professor Julia King Professor Samuel Fankhauser Lord John Krebs.|"
Just watched a BBC news item from Durban by Richard Black that talked about last-minute efforts to "stitch together a deal" and had to chuckle... talk about Freudian slips :-)
The last, bottom right corner is the self-critical winner: is criticising the BBC effective? You can't stop a juggernaut, but you can slow it down so that that hill ahead WILL be able to stop it.
Unlike the witch crazes of Germany and Scotland (perhaps the worst areas because the leaders philosophically believed in the existence of witches), with the AGW of today opponents are allowed to say their bit. That is ultra-important. Without opposition the powers can run wild - and can argue that no one thinks differently, so they must be Right. Criticizing the BBC is important in keeping alive the notion that they are biased, that they are a propaganda arm of the current government. That one cannot take at face value what is said.
It is ironic that Britain, for all its WWII demonizing of Lord Haha in Berlin, practices constant propaganda against various alleged enemies of the State. Just one example: the BBC continues to refer to Sri Lanka as Burma, in line with government policy. Really, warmist agenda on the BBC is only what should be expected. What is more surprising is that the people of Britain don't appreciate how much the BBC is a tool of the government.
What is more surprising is that the people of Britain don't appreciate how much the BBC is a tool of the government. Dec 10, 2011 at 7:27 PM | Doug Proctor
I am beginning to think that you have the statement the wrong way round!
Reader Comments (24)
Is it just me or is the full size version locked in the top left hand corner (so you can't see the rest of the full size version) ?
Brady - might be your browser, it works fine for me. Here is a link to a page on my site - see if that works better for you.
http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/bbc_report.html
Attacking the BBC is fun!!!! Josh, if your stuff was not so funny I would be screaming in pain at that line!
BBC....Expletives deleted before Bish sends me to the naughty corner again! Hope you survived the storms and falling/exploding steel work!
Pete H. That comment came from someone at the FT - something along the lines of 'it might be fun to attack the BBC but shouldn't you be doing something else that would be more effective?' which gave GWPF the opportunity to talk about all the other work they do.
Thanks Josh, your home page link works better for me ... and I like it! :-)
Thanks Josh. Like with Cardinal Pell's speech in October you humorously illustrate the main points.
Dec 9, 2011 at 3:11 PM | Josh
Thanks for the reply Josh, My comment was tongue in cheek!
Bish,
Just been reading Sir Peter Jay's forward to Booker report. Interesting stuff but I do not agree with the his last bit! My mind says the only way to stop the bias within the BBC is to totally stop the public funding. It serves no purpose in these modern years. The BBC no longer produces propaganda for the government so put them all on a private payroll! One would think that the other newspapers may get a chance of adverts for jobs within the organization and the workforce would be reduced to a profitable level with the best qualified people for the job and they would have to, like I used to do, pay for my own pension in private industry.
Seems to me that a lot of outside companies already produce the BBC programs now, the BBC internet content has adverts, so where is the problem!
I had Brady's problem at first, but by right clicking on the partially shown enlargement, saving to my pictures folder and opening it again from there, it works, and provides zoom button and 'hand'.
We have at least to be thankful that the UK worst storms and floods in living memory (in terms of loss of life) were prior to the full escalation of BBC's climate propaganda.
With sympathy to the current Scottish experience, nonetheless the 1952, 53, and 87 storms caused most serious loss of life (one of the 87 hurricane death's was a neighbour only two fields away killed by his chimney stack falling into his bedroom- the whole farmhouse was subsequently demolished and rebuilt), and the floods at Lynmouth 1952, and East Coast 1953 were even more deadly than the 2007 floods, of which so much global warming innuendo was trumpeted.
Josh a real gem thanks still laughing !
use the up and down left right keys to navigatearound the cartoon
Up/down arrow does not work for me (using IE). Try Control/mousewheel to zoom in/out.
Interestingly there was an unusually balanced package about shale tracking this morning on "Open Country" on Radio 4.
Although there were a couple of fairly incoherent "is it worth the risk" type witterings from local opponents, the tone of the piece was remarkably even-handed and left you with a real sense of the importance of this breakthrough and its limited effect upon the environment.
A simple and effective way to attack the BBC is to simply do what others have done with NGOs that have lost their way. Stop paying them.
Unplug aerials, detune your TVs and spend the £145 you save on something more useful, like heating, or food. As an organisation with one of the largest carbon footprints in Europe based on it's staff, travel, transmitters and receivers, funding such a gross polluter should be stopped anyway. Cut it down to a more environmentally friendly SW radio broadcaster.
re concealing the findings - Lord "two hats" Turner (Chairman of Financial Services Authority) seems to be following the same pattern used in his work as Chairman the UK Climate Change Committee.
In Harry Wilson's report in the Telegraph this morning it states that "the FSA has to admit it has not fully investigated RBS failings. Lord Oakeshott was the first senior politician to publicly criticise the FSA's decisions last December not to publish the details of its 18-month investigation into RBS. "It is a great shame this report does not cover five of the critical problems leading to the collapse of RBS. In particular the poor quality of the capital of RBS raises questions about the auditors of the bank," said Lord Oakeshott, a Liberal Democrat peer. Lord Turner, chairman of the FSA, originally said the document could not be made public, but was forced into an about-turn under intense political pressure."
Recognise a familiar pattern here? There is a parallel between trying to conceal or ignore the true facts of a situation, whether it be in the field of finance or climate, in order to continue with a chosen path (which also provides a lucrative career or two!) Perhaps trying to combine these two jobs has confused Turner, the poor chap. Perhaps he needs to concentrate on one or the other, or needs to be sacked as not fit for either.
Just looked up who else is on the Committee on Climate Change -to quote from their site-
"The Committee is made up of experts from the fields of climate change, science and economics. It is chaired by Lord Adair Turner. The CCC also has a secretariat of 25 staff that conduct economic, scientific and social analysis and provide corporate support.
The members of the CCC are:
Lord Adair Turner
David Kennedy, Chief Executive
Professor Jim Skea
Sir Brian Hoskins
Lord Robert May
Professor Julia King
Professor Samuel Fankhauser
Lord John Krebs.|"
Some experts!
No Saturday post from the Bish! Hope your power and internet have not be blown away by the latest dose of AGW you just suffered!
Just watched a BBC news item from Durban by Richard Black that talked about last-minute efforts to "stitch together a deal" and had to chuckle... talk about Freudian slips :-)
Thanks, Josh!
Spending a bit of time on reading your wonderful cartoon is time well spent.
(Do I really need to say that I love it???)
The last, bottom right corner is the self-critical winner: is criticising the BBC effective? You can't stop a juggernaut, but you can slow it down so that that hill ahead WILL be able to stop it.
Unlike the witch crazes of Germany and Scotland (perhaps the worst areas because the leaders philosophically believed in the existence of witches), with the AGW of today opponents are allowed to say their bit. That is ultra-important. Without opposition the powers can run wild - and can argue that no one thinks differently, so they must be Right. Criticizing the BBC is important in keeping alive the notion that they are biased, that they are a propaganda arm of the current government. That one cannot take at face value what is said.
It is ironic that Britain, for all its WWII demonizing of Lord Haha in Berlin, practices constant propaganda against various alleged enemies of the State. Just one example: the BBC continues to refer to Sri Lanka as Burma, in line with government policy. Really, warmist agenda on the BBC is only what should be expected. What is more surprising is that the people of Britain don't appreciate how much the BBC is a tool of the government.
'the BBC continues to refer to Sri Lanka as Burma'
If thats true, it's probably just because they are useless at geography. Propaganda arm of the current government? Pull the other one.
What is more surprising is that the people of Britain don't appreciate how much the BBC is a tool of the government.
Dec 10, 2011 at 7:27 PM | Doug Proctor
I am beginning to think that you have the statement the wrong way round!
I take that back Doug....after a .5 second of mind set............I do not think.........I am certain!
"Red" Adair Turner was a spectacular no-hoper as president of the CBI - what rewards for failure.