Click to buy!
Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
You can click the image for a slightly larger version
The infamous 2006 meeting where the BBC invited mostly activists to help decide that the climate science was settled. Richard D North's recollections are here.
Cartoons by Josh
View Printer Friendly Version
BBC = Bloody Blind Clowns
Marvellous stuff. The degenerate state of the BBC, the sorry saga of a climate 'debate' we have never had but which 'they' tell us is settled, the tawdry opportunists of the academic and political worlds who found climate scaremongering irresistable despite the feeble case for it - all these things are gloomsome. But every now and then, out of the penumbra up pops Josh with a brilliantly coloured, brilliantly conceived cartoon that informs and delights while at the same time presenting a sharp pin to burst some bubble of delusion in the camps of the scaremeisters. And brightening the day of all those who have already seen the light (or perhaps that should be the gloom?).
A reminder of what Richard D North wrote about that meeting is very handy. North noted that lack of curiosity in the BBC talent that resurfaced in relation to the Savile report. He also suggested that reporting of climate change issues would change once the audience " ... was asked to vote or pay for climate change policy. " Well, we really only got the latter. That might explain the cooling of warming reporting as much as the climategate emails do - we are now paying for activist positions taken by civil servants and politicians who were aided and abetted by environmental charities.
Imo the BBC has failed in it's charter obligations to inform the public. The consequences of the policy decisions taken by Government were rarely strenuously investigated and explained *before* legislation came to pass. The BBC's own activist position gave them a massive blind spot.
Not sure if this is mentioned in another thread but Homewood's analysis of the tentacles the International Broadcasting Trust extends into our media is highly relevant and alarming.
'One is also entitled to ask why an outside organisation such as the IBT has been allowed to infiltrate meetings with the BBC, Channel 4 and Sky in order to “discuss how they plan to implement the international aspects of their remits”. What business is it of the IBT? Editorial policy concerning current affairs at any TV station should not open to interference from any outside group, particularly when the BBC is involved, which is publically funded and has a duty to be impartial. Why did not the BBC and the others simply tell the IBT that such attempts to influence editorial policy were unwelcome?'
Not enough long hair or beards on the male 'expert' participants, but otherwise excellent
You are just reinforcing opinions about the 'skeptics' here. By reducing the mainstream to caricature, you end up tilting at strawmen that no-one takes seriously, and just end up reinforcing the belief that you are not to be taken seriously. Carry on.
Frank... your butt hurt much? Must be painful watching your beloved church of global warming going down in flames, one scandal at a time. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Just as it is now compulsory to Google 'children just will not know what snow is david viner' when cold weather arrives, any discussion of inbuilt bbc bias means you have to Google 'James Naughtie when we win the election' and enjoy the MP3 clip that comes up.
That is a fabulous cartoon Josh :-)
Is it possible to put in requests for new cartoon? If so I'd ask for something which conveys:
"Climate propaganda broadcast across Britain, across every channel,across every genre of programme over all devices the BBC target (mobile, iPad, PC, television, radio, Twitter) wherever we are 24 x 7"
Go get 'em Josh ^.^
TonyN's signoff at the end of posting Richard North's comments in December 2008 was pretty prescient:
"An attempted cover-up will only make matters worse; in the age of the internet, such secrets cannot be kept for ever"
Billy, of course! Ideas for cartoons are always very welcome. My main problem is lack of time and a large list of things I should be doing first ;-)
thanx josh -
the laughs will keep me awake a little longer; it's 4.30 am in australia!
a good laugh back to u, tho i do think he's right, there will be no CO2 tax:
14 Nov: Grist: David Roberts: There’s not gonna be a carbon taxThe hype has reached such an intensity that when the Sith Lord of Republican politics, Grover Norquist, said last week that a carbon tax wouldn’t necessarily violate his sacred anti-tax pledge (something he has said before), everyone went a little nuts, so much so that his organization, Americans for Tax Reform, had to issue a follow-up statement clarifying that, no, really, it “opposes a carbon tax and will work tirelessly to ensure one does not become law.”…The fact is, today’s Republican Party contains Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Sprawl (road builders, real estate developers, etc.), Big Ag, rich people, and suburbanites. Every one of those constituencies is deeply invested in the continuation of the fossil-fueled status quo. It wouldn’t matter if Friedrich Hayek himself descended from the heavens on angel wings to sing the carbon-tax gospel. Republicans are going to do what their constituencies tell them (and pay them) to do…What action there is on climate in Obama’s second term will be more of the same: nibbling around the edges via EPA and other regulatory tools, doing what can be done without Congress.“But David,” you’re protesting. “In the wake of Sandy and an Obama election victory, shouldn’t climate hawks be ambitious? Shouldn’t they shoot for the moon? Set a benchmark for what counts a real action?”Why yes! They should. But on substantive grounds, the kind of (fantasy) carbon-tax deals being discussed right now are already a compromise, already a trimming of sails. The mere existence of a carbon tax is not enough, in and of itself, to count as ambition on climate change.http://grist.org/climate-energy/theres-not-gonna-be-a-carbon-tax/
commonwealth broadcasting association. why does Galloway have such influence?
pdf: Brave New World ServiceSpecial thanks to Mark Galloway (IBT) for his advisory rolehttp://www.cba.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Brave-New-World-Service.pdf
Josh! How could you? Implying the BBC is a fat maggot.
Frank"You are just reinforcing opinions about the 'skeptics' here."
As fighting for science and openess and making very funny cartoons.That are spot on.I agree FRank.
Frank "By reducing the mainstream to caricature, you end up tilting at strawmen that no-one takes seriously, "
They reduced themselves to a caricature.No one takes science or the truth seriously ?..In $CAGW$ world you sort of see things oddly.
Frank"and just end up reinforcing the belief that you are not to be taken seriously. Carry on."
Everytime "we" find the science and claims are wrong or false..more and more people take "us" seriously.And not a squeek from you about this train wreck..nothing gets through I take it. :)
Would have liked to seen the dog-collar from the CofE rep. And maybe the hand of God (index finger rampant) reinforcing His feelings. :-) But so enjoyed it Josh. Thanks.
Link to the James Naughtie "if we win the election" mp3 clip
Thanks for putting that up Jack.A bit of info for non-UK readers would be helpful: James Naughtie is one of the presenters of 'Today', the BBC's flagship early morning news radio show.One of life's great mysteries if how many right- and Right-thinking people tune in every day, nodding sagely and taking what they hear as gospel. This was a wonderful occasion when he was inteviewing Ed Balls, a Labour (i.e. left wing) party stalwart, about the forthcoming election in 2005. What came out of his mouth was a complete giveaway that showed how, as far as he was concerned, the interview was between two fully paid-up Labour members, who were discussing 'their' party's prospects.I still get shocked every time I hear it..
Nice - but didn't someone say "ho ho"? :-)
Excellent Josh !
It's petit bourgeois mass hysteria.
Lifting my comment at WUWT for Josh's cartoon and placing it here for good measure, regarding a rather critical question posed by the commenter before me there, who'd asked who the "pivot man" would be for this BBC28 situation....
"Since US anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan seems to be so often found as the central source of the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are corrupt (as I pointed out in my #2 WUWT guest post http://bit.ly/SA5Bfs), and he seems to have had an audience at the BBC within months of the BBC 28 seminar (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/politics/montreal2_20051129.shtml), it makes me wonder if he had any input – directly or indirectly – with that bunch. After all, one of the BBC 28 mimics a long-held talking point of Gelbspan’s: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/joe-smith-dangerous-news-twenty-eight-gate-begins/#comment-34974"
Frank, if you think the BBC position on climate change is mainstream then you are deluding yourself. Its not. It is and has for a long time been extreme, even compared to the IPCC.
This has turned into the most funny page I've seen in a while now
Billy Blofeld makes a FOI request to the BBC. The BBC replies with a 'reference number.' Blofeld then responds and gives the BBC the information he requested from them: 'Jimmy Saville did not attend the 2006 global warming seminar'.
Another cracker, Josh.More power to your pen (and imagination..!)..
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.