BBC EXPOSED

 This brief video exposes the propaganda put out by the UK state broadcaster on climate change. It is something which many people are unaware of, since the BBC has a world-wide reputation for impartiality. We associate propaganda with dictatorships and communist regimes. Just because the BBC has this reputation makes it able to give out one-sided material and still be believed. The test is whether the BBC (or any other propaganda organisation) will allow opposing points of view to be heard. Once it is clear that they do not, then it becomes one-sided propaganda and should not be trusted.

BBC exposed: the Global State propaganda machine | Tom's Truth Bombs

IS PROPAGANDA POSSIBLE OR DESIRABLE IN A DEMOCRACY?

Do we believe that the government can use propaganda to indoctrinate the population in a free western democracy like the UK? I believe they can and do, though not by an orchestrated conspiracy but simply with the consent of a pliable media. 

If we take the coronavirus pandemic as an example, there is clearly a massive exercise in controlling the public's behaviour and although there is disagreement about some of the details there is a clear consensus that this is accepted. 

But what about other less consensual policies, such as climate change? Here the message is much less consensual and dissent is tolerated. The propaganda is promulgated by a free media because they choose to do so. Those in charge of the media believe they are doing the right thing  

CLIMATE CHANGE PROPAGANDA STEPS UP A GEAR

This piece explains what is going on.  When the data is not going their way they ramp up the propaganda. Let's make no bones about it, this is not about science it is a propaganda war. But the public is caught in the cross-fire not knowing what to believe.

BBC CLIMATE SCEPTIC BAN REVEALED AS PURE PROPAGANDA

Harry Wilkinson: BBC’s Climate Change ‘Facts’ Are Fiction
The Conservative Woman, 22 September 2018  

In order to avoid giving ‘false balance’ to the climate alarmists at the BBC, I thought it would be a good idea to fact-check their new internal guidance on climate change.

This is their totalitarian memorandum aimed at stamping out free scientific discourse, on the basis that certain facts are established beyond dispute.

The problem is that these ones aren’t, and the BBC is guilty of repeatedly failing to describe accurately the nuances of climate science and the degree to which certain claims are disputed.

The crucial paragraph reads:

‘Most climate scientists regard a rise of 2C as the point when global warming could become irreversible and the effects dangerous. At current rates, we are on track for a rise of more than 3-4C by the end of the century.’

There are so many things wrong with this short statement.

That global warming can be somehow ‘irreversible’ is pure propaganda; the climate has always been changing and it always will. The briefing later describes the idea of catastrophic tipping points as a ‘common misconception’, so they have comically failed their own test right at the start.

A temperature rise of more than two degrees is not inherently dangerous either. The majority of economic impact studies put the cost of climate change by the end of the century at between 1.5% and 3% of world GDP, but these studies often make the inaccurate assumption that either no or little adaptation will take place.

In contrast, even the IPCC has admitted (p.15) that the cost of reducing emissions (‘mitigation’) to meet the 2C target may be up to 4% of world GDP in 2030, 6% in 2050 and 11% in 2100.

These numbers do not incorporate the benefits of reducing our emissions, which are primarily the avoided costs of climate change. But given that a certain amount of warming is already ‘baked in’, it looks almost certain that this ‘mitigation’ will actually be far more expensive than not doing anything. If warming actually turns out to have a positive effect, the gamble will have failed even more spectacularly. […]

Quite surreally, the document also describes the statement that ‘climate change has happened before’ as a ‘common misconception’. How much longer before the BBC renames itself The Ministry of Truth?

Estimating the current and future impacts of climate change is a complex and contested enterprise, but the BBC would rather you didn’t know. ‘The science is settled’ they say, so move on. This climate memorandum is nothing less than blatant propaganda presented as fact by controller Fran. There is a critical debate to be had, so inquisitive people had better look elsewhere.

Full post & comments

HYPOCRISY AND THE LEADING GLOBAL WARMING PROPAGANDA MERCHANTS

Global warming propaganda merchants and hypocrisy go hand in hand.

• Hillary Clinton promised to buy carbon offsets to atone for her private jets, but never bothered;
• Al Gore thinks cashing in on climate and Lincoln freeing the slaves are the same thing; and
• Bill Nye (the politicized science guy) wants those of us who correct the record on climate dead.

Could they be any more selfish, self-aggrandizing and false?

Bill Nye can't wait for greying Americans to shuffle off.  Think he's eager to go himself?

CFACT's Marc Morano explained on Fox that Nye is "confident he can convert the young people to climate action but he is having trouble with anyone his age and older because frankly they’re wiser and they have experienced a lot, so they are less susceptible to his propaganda.”

UK TAXPAYER TO PAY FOR MORE GW PROPAGANDA

This article explains how the Carbon Trust, which the UK government funds (to the tune of £100 million last year) in order to promote climate change propaganda in Britain, is now going to launch an international campaign in the USA. As if the USA hasn't got enough climate alarmist propaganda of its own!

GOOD PIECE IN MAIL ON SUNDAY ON CHILD ABUSE PROPAGANDA

This article explains how so many young children are being traumatised by the incessant propaganda about the impending calamity due to global warming. The author raises a very important point which many politicians have failed to grasp. Constant propaganda has negative consequences.

MORE CLIMATE PROPAGANDA ON THE BBC

This piece looks at a recent climate change programme on BBC4 (which only has a small number of viewers). I saw the programme myself and totally agree with the article. It was a blatant attempt at one-sided propaganda with no balance.  The clever idea was to use mathematicians to present the programme, possibly because climate scientists are not trusted very much after the leaked emails. However it soon became apparent that this was a "hard sell" of the orthodox climate change doctrine. Any contrary ideas, if mentioned at all, were summarily dismissed.

ROYAL SOCIETY ADMITS CLIMATE PREDICTIONS 'UNCERTAIN'

As a result of pressure from its own members the Royal Society has been forced to replace its original highly alarmist climate change rhetoric with something much more circumspect, as this Daily Mail article explains. Another victory for common sense over propaganda. One by one the alarmist propaganda is being unmasked, without much fanfare by the media, admittedly. For those who take an interest it is having an impact,no doubt.

MAJORITY OF UK ARE CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS SAYS POLL

Here is the poll and it is hard to believe that there are so many sceptics, considering all the hype and propaganda that has been put out in the media over the past weeks and months. Perhaps too much propaganda is actually having a negative effect.

LATEST CLIMATE PROPAGANDA ON CHANNEL 4

Last evening I watched a programme on Britain's Extreme Weather. It is still available to view on computer (see this link). As I expected it was a one-sided piece of climate change propaganda dressed up as a normal documentary. It began by showing all the various different "extremes" of weather, particularly highlighting the flooding events around the country. I recall no mention of the fact that these all occurred in flood plains or in places surrounded by steep hills. There was no serious attempt to look in detail at the records for rainfall. A couple of harsh winters from the past were mentioned to try to give an impression of balance.

All this was leading to the obvious conclusion which appeared in the last 15 minutes of the hour long programme - man made CO2 was the culprit and two climate scientists of a "warmist" persuasion appeared to warn us that things were likely to get a lot worse. Funnily enough no one bothered to mention that there has been no statistically significant global warming for 16 years despite CO2 levels continuing to rise. Naturally no one was invited on who had any alternative views. This was clearly aimed at those with no knowledge other than the prevailing orthodoxy. As it was on Channel 4 it probably had quite small audience. In view of the mounting evidence that global warming has stopped for the past 16 years I wonder if there will be any attempt to look at this? 

UPDATE ON THE CURRENT CLIMATE CONFERENCE IN BONN

The update below is from CFACT

What's missing at this year's big UN climate conference?

The American pavilion.

When President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the UN's Paris Climate Accord, he also cut back on the American presence in the UN process. Sure, the official State Department representatives are here, but the sideshow is tellingly absent.

In past years the U.S. put on big displays where NASA trotted out its “hyperwall” which stacks nine computer monitors for multimedia presentations. CFACT's friends may remember the time at COP 20 in Peru, when CFACT approached a group of Obama administration staff running the hyperwall. They were prepared to dismiss CFACT as “flat-Earther, climate deniers,” until they realized who had marched in at the head of our delegation and fell over themselves with respectful greetings. Colonel Walt Cunningham flew in space on Apollo VII, the mission that launched America's quest for the moon. Walt saw the curvature of the Earth first hand from the window of his command module. No flat-Earther he.

Walt has worked diligently to reform NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies which first James Hansen and now Gavin Schmidt made into a platform for presenting politicized views of climate science. A large number of astronauts and NASA veterans co-signed a letter demanding NASA knock off the propaganda.

At COP 23, at least, the propaganda spigot has been turned off.

Like last year's COP 22 in Marrakesh, President Trump remains the talk of the conference. Campaigners worked for years to bring America and its wealth under the UN climate regime. They were shocked when only a year later America broke free. What does this mean for their dreams of redistribution and control? They don't know, and in the long run, neither do we.

President Obama made a huge mistake when he signed onto the Paris climate agreement and Trump did the right thing getting out. The UN climate elite are doing all they can to drag us back in. They've enlisted a group of American politicians led by California Governor Jerry Brown and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg who are on their way to Bonn to put on their own American climate show.

CFACT is your eyes and ears at the UN talks. We'll be speaking up and fearlessly laying out the facts as well.

Getting out of Paris was right.

PURGING THE CLIMATE PROPAGANDA - A MISSION IN PROGRESS

 How is the Trump administration doing in its efforts to remove and replace all the pro-climate change propaganda on USA government websites? It has been a good start but there is still a lot to do according to this article;

It's Time To Purge The Climate Scam From The Federal Websites — Manhattan Contrarian

PROPAGANDA POLLING ON CLIMATE MAKES ASTONISHING CLAIMS

Yet more climate propaganda reported in the Guardian.

"A majority of the UK public and almost half of Conservative voters support a radical plan to transform the economy and tackle the climate crisis, a poll suggests."

YouGov found that 56% of people back the total decarbonisation of the UK economy by 2030 and just under half support public spending to make large swathes of public transport free to use. Without knowing the cost, or who pays.

But, below is the crucial question asked. It might as well say "do you want to carry on living as you do now but with more trees?" "The UK Government has committed to a target of bringing all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. This means making efforts to lower carbon emissions and off-setting any emissions with schemes such as tree-planting or using technology like carbon capture and storage. When do you think the Government should aim to be net zero by?"

2025 or earlier                                               32

2030                                                              24

2045                                                                8

2050 or later                                                    8

This should not be a Government target        8

Don't know                                                    19

As Julia Hartley-Brewer suggests, let’s try asking this question again: "Would you agree to give up your car, your central heating, foreign holidays and pay thousands more in tax to deliver an energy policy that will have ZERO effect on climate change?" I wonder what the answer would be then...

Read the full report here.at Breitbart.

PEOPLE DON'T BUY THE GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA ON HEAT PUMPS

Richard North writes some interesting stuff and the article below contains a lot of truth as far as the policy on heat pumps is concerned. As Richard points out, we are in the Alice-in-Wonderland school of government support as, despite needing £4.5 billion a year to meet its targets, the government has committed a mere £1.5 billion spread over four years from 2025 to 2028. This amounts to a total of 200,000 conversions at a rate of 50,000 a year – leaving unfunded around 550,000 conversions a year to meet the target. Read the rest here:

 Net-zero: the wages of propaganda | Turbulent Times

LOOK AT WHAT PROPAGANDA CAN DO

Some people have been taken in so completely by the continuous stream of propaganda coming from the media that they are now preparing to starve themselves in a pathetic attempt to save the planet. While I am sympathetic to the plight of these poor demented souls, they must be told that their efforts are futile and no one will pay them any attention should they persist. No doubt the Health Service will pick up the pieces at taxpayers expense after this self-inflicted effort to ruin their health.

BBC STREAM OF CLIMATE PROPAGANDA CONTINUES

Bad weather events exaggerated to sound like some sort of apocalypse. But will the public be fooled?

 BBC Prefer Propaganda To Facts | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

UN IN MAJOR CLIMATE CHANGE PROPAGANDA EXERCISE

If anyone thought that the United Nations was a neutral body that looked at climate science from a scientific stand-point then one look at this stuff should be enough to make you see otherwise. The statements in that piece are in direct contradiction with the IPCC reports, which are produced for the UN.

How about the first sentence:  "There is no country in the world that is not seeing first-hand the drastic effects of climate change." How is that compatible with the IPCC report which says it is not possible to attribute the cause of any individual climate event? Of course there are many extreme weather events around the world, but this is nothing new or unusual. Only a fool thinks these will be eradicated, and certainly not by controlling emissions of CO2.

And then there's:  "The annual average losses from just earthquakes, tsunamis, tropical cyclones and flooding count in the hundreds of billions of dollars." - So now they are grouping earthquakes and tsunamis in with weather. This is desperate stuff which even a school boy would spot.

When the UN writes such blatant propaganda which its own IPCC does not support then they must believe we are all stupid. I only hope they are wrong.

If you look at the UN website you can see that this piece is taken from the UN sustainable development goals of which there are a total of 17. Most of the others are uncontroversial, if a little hard to achieve in the world as it currently exists. The climate change has been "slipped in", perhaps in the hope that it will be accepted in the same way as "eradicating hunger and poverty", or "providing clean water and affordable energy". But it is not. It is a very controversial subject and we ought to say so at every opportunity. In fact the provision of affordable energy can only be achieved by the use of fossil fuels. A fact which the governments of India and China are well aware of.

SCHOOL PROPAGANDA WARS

Almost a year ago a High Court Judge ruled that Al Gore's polemic "An Inconvenient Truth" was not an ordinary science film, but it was a piece of political propaganda which could only be shown in schools if special guidance was followed. Nevertheless the government decided to continue to promote the film to all secondary schools in England.

In the interest of balance The Freedom Association (which I am proud to be the climate spokesman for) is offering a free DVD of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to all secondary schools in the UK. So far the offer has been extended to schools in Leicestershire and there has been an encouraging take up. Teachers do not like being lectured to by government and want to give students a broad understanding of the very complex issues involved in global climate. We must never allow any government to give prescriptive instructions on the political matter taught in school.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CLAMPS DOWN ON GRATUITOUS PROPAGANDA BY PUBLIC SERVANTS

At last we have someone in power who can call a halt to the never ending flow of climate alarmist propaganda being pushed out by government employees. Here is an example of the new stricter control being put in place and long overdue it is. We may yet see some of the hidden evidence that shows how much uncertainty there is about all this - so much that it would be foolish to spend billion of dollars to reduce CO2 (as the previous president was doing).