Posts Tagged 'The Guardian'

Alan Rusbridger – Hypocrite and a coward

It seems people at The Guardian like asking tough questions, but they don’t like answering them.  After using this blog to share details of the sheer hypocrisy of The Guardian for its assault on Barclays – while using exactly the same tax avoidance measures itself to keep money rolling in despite the pisspoor newspaper continuing to make a loss and see its sales fall 7% in the last year – I tweeted this message:

Needless to say, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger has not replied, via Twitter or any other medium.  In fact, in trying to see what Rusbridger has to say about Guido’s revelations I noticed I was no longer following his tweets on Twitter.  This was curious as I had not ‘unfollowed him’.  I soon found out why he had dropped off my list… (click to enlarge)

The man is truly fearless.

Guardian campaigns against hedge funds but uses them to make money

On his blog Guido explains how earlier this month the Guardian front paged a story revealing that the City of London accounted for £11.4 million of the Conservative Party’s funding in 2009–10.  The Guardian told in lurid terms that millions passed to Tory coffers by rich hedge fund managers.

Guido now reveals that during that same period the Guardian Media Group – owners of The Guardian and The Observer – gained £39.3 million from investments… in hedge funds. And Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger sat on the board which approved the hedge fund investment plan.

Read the story in full.

Guardian’s tax hypocrisy, continued

Following on from Saturday’s post about The Guardian’s rank hypocrisy on tax avoidance, Guido Fawkes, FCABlog and Tim Worstall have kept up the pressure.

Today Guido has gone further than the Tweets carried on this blog and catalogued the facts about The Guardian’s tax avoidance which in 2008 saw Guardian Media Group pay 0% (zero percent) in corporation taxes on their £302 million profits.  Kerrching!!  Despite this The Guardian has been running a concerted campaign against Barclays for using the same tax avoidance measures employed (more successfully it seems) by Guardian Media Group.

The protesters of UKUncut have been occupying Barclays branches in protest demanding they pay more tax in the UK, despite the bank paying a huge sum in other taxes to the Exchequer.  This leads us to ask the obvious question:

When are tax loving UKUncut travellers going to occupy the offices of The Guardian in protest at their tax avoidance?

The Guardian’s rank hypocrisy on tax avoidance

Following two major articles on the ‘front page’ of the Guardian’s website – ‘Barclays bank forced to admit it paid just £113m in corporation tax in 2009’ [link] and ‘How the Guardian was gagged from revealing Barclays tax secrets’ [link] – the 2.74% Guardian has also published an editorial titled ‘Corporate tax avoidance: Impoverishing the public’, which you can read here.

Many may feel angered that Barclays managed to use tax avoidance measures (perfectly legal, as opposed to tax evasion which is not) to pay only £113m Corporation Tax to the UK Exchequer.  But that is the way the system is set up and it is worth remembering that even with such a miniscule effective tax rate on their earnings (a mere 1%) Barclays provides employment for thousands of people and loans to businesses and individuals.  So despite their focus on generating returns for shareholders, Barclays still provides something to the UK.

But the focus of this post is not to condemn Barclays for their actions, plenty of other people will do that perfectly adequately. After all, who in all honesty would not use legal means to reduce their tax liability if they could?  Even the sanctimonious champagne socialists who own the Guardian do the same. The socialist scribes at their little organ, with its 2.74% share of the national newspaper market, churn out stuff like this:

It is a simple equation, and may not be an easy one for Whitehall to implement. But the Guardian’s Tax Gap series meticulously documented squillions of pounds in avoidance, establishing beyond doubt that the seepage of revenue was on a scale that constituted a pressing public concern. Fixing the leaks may not save every last swimming pool, but it could make a big difference. Barclays is an iconic case for making the point, seeing as bankers’ determination to minimise their contribution to public funds is matched by the lavishness of the benefits they have enjoyed at public expense.

but their employer is no better. Let the Tweets of blogger Guido Fawkes explain all (no doubt more on this will follow on his Twitter feed):

Ah, you might say. The Guardian is a newspaper and therefore not being underwritten with the guarantees provided to the banking sector with our money, it does not benefit from public funds.  Wrong.

The Guardian is bolstered by its stranglehold on public sector job adverts for government, local authorities and its incestuous partner at the BBC. It also earns money from its education propaganda tool Learn Premium (more to come on that at a later date), which sold to schools seeks to indoctrinate our school children with leftist texts and media.  Our tax pounds are poured into the Guardian to pay for these ads and tools, so the paper benefits financially at our expense.

Having lavished our tax pounds on this newspaper – just as we have with the banking sector – we find exactly the same corporate tax avoidance games being played.  The Guardian’s hypocrisy on this subject stinks.

  • Where does their ‘Tax Gap’ series mention Guardian Media Group’s own behaviour?
  • Where are the stories from their own journalists about GMG’s tax avoidance?
  • Where is their righteous indignation at the behaviour of their owners?

Alan Rusbridger’s silence and that of his journalists on the Guardian owners’ own behaviour, is deafening.  Hypocrites.

The disproportionate influence of the Guardian at the BBC

Last week saw the release of the Audit Bureau of Circulations figures for national newspapers for January, reported in the Press Gazette. For those who don’t tend to keep an eye on newspaper circulation the audit throws up an interesting picture (including some poor proofing of the figures).

It also poses a question for the BBC’s management about its relationship with the Guardian.

(The Up/Down figure is the year-on-year percentage rise or fall in circulation)

When you look at these figures it is easy to see why the BBC should account for the disproportionate number of television and radio appearances by journalists from the Guardian. When given a choice of a national newspaper we can see that out of an average 10,197,331 copies sold each day during January 2011 (including bulk buys) less than 280,000 copies in the UK were the Guardian. That represents just under 2.74% of national circulation.

That puts the Guardian’s popularity, or lack thereof, in its proper context.  So why is it hardly a day goes by where a Guardian journalist is not rolled out onto the BBC airwaves to promote their opinion and analysis to the viewing and listening audience?  One only has to watch BBC TV or listen to BBC radio to see that no other newspaper’s journalists feature so frequently.

The figures show the Guardian’s news and comment is overwhelmingly rejected by those who choose to part with their money to take national newspapers.  Yet the BBC is determined to push the Guardian’s views on the public via the airwaves, something we are forced to pay for under pain of fine or imprisonment.  There is also crossover with BBC personalities publishing their comments in Guardian columns.  How is this balanced or impartial?  We wait in vain for an answer.

What this also puts into context is the BBC’s indefensible bias in only trawling a very narrow and self professed left wing pool when only using the Guardian to advertise vacancies.  It is a measure of the naked political bias inherent in our national public service broadcaster, which proves it is nothing more than a self serving broadcaster.

Bile, hatred, moronic comments and the apologists of the Guardian

This could be a long one. Sometimes events occur that stir feelings and reactions in oneself that lead to a tipping point where frustration or annoyance spills over into genuine rage and the loss of self control. That has happened this afternoon.

I’m not given to writing profanity, but on this occasion perhaps it is understandable. Forgive me. Or don’t. At this moment in time I really don’t care. I’ll try to write in a lucid way but if the words make no sense try to understand I’m in a temper and writing this is an attempt to regain control.

The events in question put the puerile bollockspeak of a showboating moronic wanker like David Cameron into its proper context. Readers may recall Cameron’s grandstanding to the audience and his wooden theatrics when he declared that:

it makes me physically ill to contemplate giving the vote to prisoners.

Really?  We are to supposed to believe that Cameron felt the physical sensation of nausea in reaction to the prospect of prisoners getting the vote? Oh fuck right off. If you believe that bullshit there’s no hope for you. If something like that made Cameron feel ‘physically ill’ then no one should provide him with the details of what happened in Cairo to CBS television reporter Lara Logan. He will probably puke up all over this bloody Downing Street cat that seems to be the political story of the week. God knows, the details have made me feel physically ill. And unlike that useless sack of shit I’m not saying that for bloody effect.

For a couple of days the news has been circulating that Logan is recovering in hospital in the US after she was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob while covering the Egyptian protests.  The words beaten and sexually assaulted covers a wide range of injuries and completely sanitises the extent of what happened.  Read on if you’ve got the stomach for it:

“60 Minutes” correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, “Jew! Jew!” as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo’s main square Friday, CBS and sources said yesterday.

The TV crew with Logan, who is also the network’s chief foreign correspondent, had its cameras rolling moments before she was dragged off — and caught her on tape looking tense and trying to head away from a crowd of men behind her in Tahrir Square.

“Logan was covering the jubilation . . . when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration,” CBS said in a statement. “It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy.

“In the crush of the mob, [Logan] was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers.

“She reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning,” the network added. “She is currently in the hospital recovering.”

A network source told The Post that her attackers were screaming, “Jew! Jew!” during the assault. And the day before, Logan had told that Egyptian soldiers hassling her and her crew had accused them of “being Israeli spies.” Logan is not Jewish.

In Friday’s attack, she was separated from her colleagues and attacked for between 20 to 30 minutes, The Wall Street Journal said.

Her injuries were described to The Post as “serious.”

If these details are accurate, she was dragged away, terrified, by a hate filled mob in full view of the public, she was mercilessly beaten as they screamed ‘Jew’ at her and she was brutally raped time and again during that 20-30 minutes.  This is the the sort of story that makes someone feel physically ill.  We cannot begin to imagine what that poor woman went through, the fear, the pain, the violation, the loss of her dignity, the not knowing whether she would even survive.

But the revulsion I feel has been compounded by an American journalist darling of the left called Nir Rosen.  This self important bastard took to his Twitter account to indulge his desire to spew his bile and demonstrate what a free thinker he is, without knowing the facts.  This is a sample of what he is reported to have said:

The initial tweet by Rosen stated, “Lara Logan had to outdo Anderson [CNN journalist Anderson Cooper, who had recently been roughed up and threatened with beheading by a similar Egyptian mob]. Where was her buddy McCrystal.” From this tweet he went further, writing that he would have been amused if Anderson Cooper had also been sexually assaulted.

“Yes yes its wrong what happened to her. Of course. I don’t support that. But, it would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too,” wrote Rosen.

The two comments gave way to more. Rosen called Logan a “war monger” and expressed doubt that she was actually assaulted.

“Jesus Christ, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger” wrote Rosen

He carried on, probably after being cautioned by other Tweeters:

“Look, she was probably groped like thousands of other women, which is still wrong, but if it was worse than [sic] I’m sorry.”

Rosen clarified his initial reference to former American commander in Afghanistan Stanley McChrystal, writing that the assault should serve as a reminder of Logan’s “role glorifying war and condemning Rolling Stone’s Hastings while defending McChrystal.”

Then came a quasi-apology by Rosen: “ah fuck it, I apologize for being insensitive, it’s always wrong, that’s obvious, but I’m rolling my eyes at all the attention she will get.”

Oh yes, he’s sorry now, after that grudging and mealy mouthed excuse for an apology.  He wouldn’t have said it if he had realised how serious it was apparently.  Maybe he shouldn’t have said it in the first place.  Attention seeking wanker.  What a sick bastard he is, only thinking about his jealousy at the likely attention Logan would receive.  He clearly has some kind of mental issue. Needless to say this vicious and arrogant smear of shit has subsequently lost his job as fellow at the New York University Center on Law and Security.  Quite right too.  His comments are utterly indefensible.

At least I would have thought they were.  But no.  In my ignorance of the depth of camaraderie among left wing journalists I hadn’t reckoned on some other self important left wing blowhard acting as an apologist for Rosen and spewing forth in an attempt to deflect attention from Rosen on to someone else by way of an attack on a vicious and spiteful right wing blogger, Debbie Schlussel, for her own equally sick diatribe at Logan.

Step forward apologist in chief Michael Tomasky of the Guardian.  Quelle fucking surprise.  What is it about the people that work at that bloody paper?  It is a cesspool of disaffected, self satisfied hubris furthering its insipid agenda with a level of spite that exceeds human comprehension.

I expected you’ve heard the hideous news that Lara Logan of CBS News, above, was sexually assaulted in Cairo. And I expect you’ve heard that Nir Rosen, the left-leaning journalist who is like Logan a war correspondent, distastefully joked about it on Twitter. You’re probably less likely to have heard about Debbie Schlussel’s comments, more on which later.

Yeah that’s right. What Tomasky is saying is Rosen is evil, but look, I’ve found a right winger who is even worse. So you can’t be too hard on my fellow traveller.  He dribbles on:

Rosen, who has written for Rolling Stone, the New Yorker and various other publications, lost a prestigious fellowship at the New York University Center for Law and Security because of his tweets. He has been issuing apologies left and right, most notably in this interview with Media Bistro, where he went far beyond the usual bromides:

Oh stop, he was clearly so wonderful and all this is so unfair and you’re breaking my fucking heart. No one forced him to open his gobshite mouth.

There’s a great deal more in that vein. A great deal.

Rosen has some controversial views, but he is a reporter who goes into war zones.

You are fucking kidding me, right?  He goes into war zones?  So this gives him some kind of free pass to make the vicious, spiteful and contemptuous comments he did about Lara Logan?  Onto the Guardianista moral equivalence then:

Schlussel is a right-wing blogger whose specialty is fulmination, I believe from Michigan, about the subhuman qualities of Arabs.

And this lessens the sheer depth of bile Rosen doled out on Twitter does it?  Only a Guardian based conceited apologist wanker could have the brass neck to offer this up:

Rosen (whom I know very slightly, and ran into in the BBC Washington office not long ago) said some deeply unconscionable things and deserves a healthy stretch in the penalty box. But at least he’s remorseful about what he said. Schlussel is plainly an egomaniac and in an update to her original post just laid it on even more thickly.

So that’s alright then.  You ran into him at the BBC – where else would left wing tossers like you be? – so you’re qualified to act as his PR.  Both deserve equal condemnation, but the moral equivalence here is digusting.  And to defend him you have to draw parallels with a hate filled woman?  Doesn’t that tell you something?  No, you’re probably so far up your own arse you can’t rationalise that.  That’s why you have to resort to bullshit like this to defend your pal while attacking a competitor of the Guardian, a competitor of the BBC and a competitor of the New York Times, you opportunist bastard:

We live in an age in which every instant thought can be sent out into the world. Some people try to learn from it. Others take advantage of it for the purpose of spreading their name. What odds should I lay down that Murdoch properties Fox News or the New York Post, where Schlussel appears, will make her submit to any penalty?

Rosen is incapable of controlling himself but you try to defend him.  This is the kind of stuff that makes one feel physically ill.  Not one word of concern for Lara Logan from Tomasky, just a biased agenda to pursue.  I’m still feeling the nausea now. If there is a hell I hope the scum like Rosen, Schlussel and Tomasky end up there. Cameron can go there too for his pathetic exaggerations that cheapen the impact of stories of real suffering.

My thoughts and best wishes are with Lara after the appalling trauma she has suffered.  I hope that when her body has healed the psychological pain will be the least it possibly can be.

Why our failing and biased media should concern us all

Yesterday on James Delingpole’s news blog I left a comment concerning the coverage of the Met Office’s actions and behaviour in the media. Or, more accurately, the lack of it.

In thanking Dellers for giving some ‘mainstream media’ visibility to what has been dug out by the blogosphere, I added the following:

The rest of the media is either asleep at the wheel, or doesn’t have the gumption to dig for the truth and report it. The public is being badly let down by complacent journalists who sit and wait for a press release to land in their inbox.

If a handful of bloggers can put this together in their spare time, why not a few professional full time journalists?

A written answer in the House of Commons yesterday, to a question about public involvement in the political process, led me to a survey finding that underlines why the media’s lack of attention to matters such as these – with their implications for public awareness, policy and public spending – should concern everyone.

Mark Harper’s response made reference to the Hansard Society’s 7th Annual Audit of Political Engagement, published last year, and the finding that there has been a big decline since the first Audit in 2004 (sic) in the perceived impact of the Westminster Parliament on people’s lives, compared to other institutions.

So what are the public’s most recent perceptions about the institutions perceived to have the greatest impact on people’s lives?  Harper had already alluded to the perceived lesser impact of Westminster, so where does the power now reside?

To understand the percentages, APE1 is the figure from December 2003, APE4 the figure from November 2006 and APE7 the most recent figure from November 2009.

It shows that of the available options (X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent are noticably absent) the media is perceived to have the greatest impact on people’s everyday lives.

Not, you notice, the bureaucrats and functionaries who make our laws, raise our taxes, meddle in our lives and oversee the ruination of our justice system, rather the lazy hacks who sit around waiting for press releases they can cut and paste as news copy and the TV reporters who throw softballs at the political class in what pass for searching interviews.  The irony is staggering considering the lack of trust many people have in journalists.

Given the BBC’s dominant position in news reporting in the UK and the fact its editorial line is lifted directly from the dismal Guardian, this finding is horrifying.  The naked bias in reporting on matters such as how we are governed and by whom, the economy, foreign affairs and climate change, does have an impact on those who rely exclusively on the mainstream media in shaping their view of the world.  It is profoundly worrying.

While tens of thousands of people have been visiting this blog over recent weeks, and hundreds of thousands more have visited other blogs to see facts presented that the media chooses not to relay to its audience, the fact remains citizen journalists are still grovelling in the weeds.  We can be concerned, we can tut and sigh, or we can redouble our efforts to reach a wider audience and present them with information the establishment (which very much includes the mainstream media) prefers to keep quiet about.

We are in a fight between perception and reality. To date, with the noble exception of James Delingpole, no one in the mainstream media has touched this story of Met Office lies and deception, despite it being presented to two national newspapers. Many millions of people are being fed the party line and are unaware of the serious questions raised about the integrity and competence of people we pay to work for us, not just on this subject but on all subjects.  It should concern us all.

BBC: The broadcast arm of The Guardian

It isn’t like we didn’t know this already, but confirmation from someone who has experienced it at first hand, time and again, is always worth a great deal more than outside observation.

In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.

Peter Sissons

It is worth restating that with The Guardian’s well known and self professed liberal left bias, the BBC cannot possibly be considered in any way impartial because it relies so heavily on that paper to inform its chosen editoral narrative.

That is why we constantly see Guardian journalists on BBC programmes providing biased analysis and see the two organs collaborating closely to achieve a particular outcomes, the most recent example of which was the witch hunt resulting in the bringing down of Andy Coulson. There have been other instances in the not too distant past of BBC and Guardian collusion to bring someone down in order to further a political agenda.  Something else Sissons says is worth repeating:

What the BBC wants you, the public, to believe is that it has ‘independence’ woven into its fabric, running through its veins and concreted into its foundations.

The reality, I discovered, was that for the BBC, independence is not a banner it carries ­principally on behalf of the listener or viewer.

Rather, it is the name it gives to its ability to act at all times in its own best interests.

The BBC’s ability to position itself, to decide for itself on which side its bread is buttered, is what it calls its independence. It’s flexible, and acutely sensitive to which way the wind is blowing politically.

Complaints from viewers may invariably be met with the BBC’s stock response, ‘We don’t accept that, so get lost’. But complaints from ministers, though they may be rejected publicly, usually cause consternation — particularly if there is a licence fee settlement in the offing. And not just ministers, if a change of Government is thought likely.

Just watch that last sentence come true as the coalition comes under pressure and an election draws near.  This is what informs BBC editorial lines on politics, climate change, the economy, industrial unrest, foreign affairs and international institutions such as the EU and the UN.  All of which helps to put this post into its proper context – with the words ‘independent’ or ‘independence’ used no less than seven times in the BBC’s response.

And this is how our money is used.  Now Peter Sissons has followed Robin Aitken in confirming the true nature of the BBC, the question is not ‘will the BBC now change?’ but ‘who will be next?’.

BBC’s biased reporting of Global Warming

This excellent short video reminds us of the counter consensus on global warming/climate change, views from the scientists on side of the debate that the BBC refuses to air.

It reminds us of the political origins the global warming industry and the dishonesty of the main media player in the UK which has seized upon climate change as a convenient method of furthering their preferred political agenda. All blogs with an interest in this subject should add this to their content.

Comment is Free?

Unless you are trying to comment on a post in the Guardian.

Bishop Hill suggested taking a look at the comments in response to Bob Ward’s latest self indulgent whinge in the Groan (his job is to get column inches proclaiming impending catastrophe, so if climate armageddon predicted by his employers is being ignored Ward is proving ineffective).

And as usual it looks like the only thing that is liberal over there is the use of the moderator’s hammer…

Can Guardian journalists get any more hypocritical?

There are publications with journalists that are ‘selective’ with the facts, then there is The Guardian. Uniquely among newspaper journalists, those earnest propagandists who inhabit The Guardian possess a sense of moral superiority and engage in double standards that would shame many other reporters.

The latest example comes from Damian Carrington writing on his Environment Blog, who takes the Arizona shooting murders and subsequent discussion about violent rhetoric, and attempts to superimpose it over the climate change arena to attack those who disagree with the alarmists.

On Planet Carrington (which is no doubt heating uncontrollably and where snow and ice is a thing of the past) the violent rhetoric seems to be a one way street, from evil climate change deniers / criminals / sceptics to those noble, selfless and unimpeachable climate scientists tainted by Climategate or their simple association with the man made global warming alarmist creed.  What else could we have expected? If nasty ‘right wingers’ are fair game then it follows the Guardian’s special loathing for anyone opposed to the AGW groupthink makes them fair game for this treatment too.

Abuse, threats, intimidation and genuine violent rhetoric are reprehensible and intolerable, no matter where they originate or where they are directed.  But for once it would have been welcome to see some balance from a Guardian journalist like Carrington. That is obviously too much to ask. Which is why it falls to blogs like this to shine a light on the other side of the coin… there is enough out there and here’s a few examples:

In a post titled: ‘There will be blood‘ Carrington showed up his rank hypocrisy as he himself described the ‘No Pressure’ 10:10 video (embedded within his post) of children being blown up for ignoring their carbon footprints thus:

It’s most definitely striking and if you haven’t watched it yet – taking into account the warning that it contains scenes some people may find disturbing – do so now, before I give too much away.

Even after 10:10 took down their video, Carrington scurried off to YouTube and found another copy to link to so it could stay on his blog. He then asked his readers:

Had a look? Well, I’m certain you’ll agree that detonating school kids, footballers and movie stars into gory pulp for ignoring their carbon footprints is attention-grabbing. It’s also got a decent sprinkling of stardust – Peter Crouch, Gillian Anderson, Radiohead and others.

So it seems violent rhetoric and imagery was perfectly acceptable to Carrington as it furthered his agenda and was ‘edgy’ and sprinked with stardust.  Nice to have him out of the intolerance closet.  Here’s a few others:

Why climate change deniers should be blown to bits…

Finnish environmentalist recommends that climate change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state…


The Guardian asks the big question…

Are humans definitely causing global warming? No, really, The Guardian’s environment section asks this as part of the Guardian’s ‘ultimate climate change FAQ’.

It’s a bit like watching volleyball. The Guardian knows what answer it wants to give, so it cherry picks the bits of information that fit its narrative (the ‘set’) and then delivers a supposedly unequivocal answer (the ‘spike’). As it’s not a particularly long piece it seems an appropriate time for a fisk…

Just as the world’s most respected scientific bodies have confirmed that world is getting hotter, they have also stated that there is strong evidence that humans are driving the warming.

Wow! Impressive! That would be respected bodies like the utterly discredited International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), NASA’s GISS, University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and the UK’s Met Office. Strange, there is no mention of Climategate, Amazongate, Glaciergate, the number of times GISS has been forced to ‘adjust’ its data, the fact CRU cannot find its vital raw data and that the Met Office’s forecasts are a standing joke.

The 2005 joint statement from the national academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US said:

“It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.”

Likely, they say. So that means there is uncertainty and therefore a lack of proof. And then it says ‘most’ of the warming. So nature is actually up to something that mankind has no control over? Incredible.

Countless more recent statements and reports from the world’s leading scientific bodies have said the same thing. For example, a 2010 summary of climate science by the Royal Society stated that:

“There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.”

Ah yes, that would be the Royal Society that had to rewrite its position on climate change because it was accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause. Strange, there is no mention of that. Could it be the fundamentally dishonest Guardian is trying to hide something? So if there is such ‘strong evidence’, where it is? Is it perhaps that the ‘evidence’ is nothing more than correlation and there is nothing to prove causation? Leave it to The Guardian and we will never know.

The idea that humans could change the planet’s climate may be counter-intuitive, but the basic science is well understood. Each year, human activity causes billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere. As scientists have known for decades, these gases capture heat that would otherwise escape to space – the equivalent of wrapping the planet in an invisible blanket.

The basic science is indeed well understood. You erase from history any mention of periods when the earth was warmer than now, you collect temperature data from monitoring stations at locations where they get blasted with warm air from vents or aircraft engines and ignore unreliable temperature records they produce, you produce a disturbing graph that looks like a hockey stick but don’t tell anyone that any data produces the same curve, you sample the cores of a number of trees and discount the overwhelming majority that show there has been barely any change in temperature, then you apply adjustments to the data so instead of a broadly flat line you end up with a steeply rising one that becomes your ‘strong evidence’. And while we’re at it, let’s take a closer look at that ‘invisible blanket’ shall we?

Of course, the planet’s climate has always been in flux thanks to “natural” factors such as changes in solar or volcanic activity, or cycles relating the Earth’s orbit around the sun. According to the scientific literature, however, the warming recorded to date matches the pattern of warming we would expect from a build up of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere – not the warming we would expect from other possible causes.

Of course, this only works if one ignores all the other literature produced by scientists who state the greenhouse gas effect is dramatically overstated. Strange, there’s no mention of that counter consensus of scientists (as opposed to railway engineers and economists) whose research finds that greenhouse gas (they mean CO2 when they use the terms because water vapour never gets a mention, despite being by far the most volumous greenhouse gas – perhaps measuring and taxing water vapour emissions is too difficult) has nothing like the claimed impact on temperature and therefore casts huge doubt over man’s supposed influence on the climate.

Even if scientists did discover another plausible explanation for the warming observed to date, that would beg a difficult question. As Robert Henson puts it in The Rough Guide to Climate Change:

“If some newly discovered factor can account for the climate change then why aren’t carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases producing the warming that basic physics tells us they should be?”

And carbon dioxide, the currency of the new world order, finally gets its first mention. Why did that take so long? Well, it was only a matter of time before a strawman was built in order to be knocked over and it had to be about the disputed influence of CO2. The climate is far more complex than some grant-chasing scientists are willing to admit and if greenhouse gases played anything more than a bit part in nature’s regulation of the planet’s atmosphere and ecology we would have all long since fried. Basic physics according a number of scientists The Guardian says, but exaggerated cant according to plenty of other scientists. And so we come to the end…

The only way to prove with 100% certainty that humans are responsible for global warming would be to run an experiment with two identical Earths – one with human influence and one without. That obviously isn’t possible, and so most scientists are careful not to state human influence as an absolute certainty. Nonetheless, the evidence is now extremely strong.

This is cute. Despite telling us for years that the ‘debate is over’ and that the ‘science is settled’ the flaws and failings in the global warming/climate change narrative – combined with nature’s stubborn refusal to perform as computer models say she should – have forced the warmists to adjust their arguments, much like they adjust the temperature records.

The basic lie here – and let’s face it, The Guardian is a world leader when it comes to lies – is the claim that most scientists are careful not to state human influence as an absolute certainty. This is not true if you look at those scientists who sing the warmist creed. Hansen, Jones, Trenberth, Mann, Briffa, all describe human influence on climate as ‘incontrovertible’. These are the high priests of the warmist cult whose flawed / missing / adjusted / corrected / selective ‘research findings’ are treated as a baseline from which other research begins – therefore meaning the outcome will always point to human induced warming.

Again, in a piece that links off to various other material, there is nothing pointing us to this ‘strong evidence’. We are just expected to accept it as a truth. We are expected to ‘believe’ because that is what the ‘believers’ need us to do, regardless of the reality and the facts.

Monbiot, global warming, idiocy and spin

There are two cracking, ‘must read’ posts today that take George Monbiot to task over his stance on global warming. These will be posts worth bookmarking for future reference, given the wonderful assortment of quotes and other material…

First up we have Dr Richard North at EU Referendum who argues that Monbiot is plumbing new depths of stupidity, insisting in the loathsome Guardian that the “unusually cold winters” are caused by global warming – Total Eclipse of the Moonbat. The post contains numerous warmist quotes about winter weather that they are now contradicting.

Then comes Anthony Watts at Watts Up With That? who exposes the flaws in Monbiot’s claims when using NASA GISS to prove to his readers that warm pocket weather patterns elsewhere cause cold in England – Australia’s white summer, Monbiot’s red fury. The post shows how data is used selectively to map temperature and is fundamentally unreliable.

Did The Guardian persuade Assange to publish WikiLeaks data?

If you have 15 minutes spare, do watch of this video clip. It appears to lay bare The Guardian’s less than passive role in the WikiLeaks release of US diplomatic cables.

Far from being a mere bystander that published the information, it actively pushed for the information to be exposed to further its continuing anti-American campaign while planning to get a world exclusive. The clip also reminds us of that paper’s track record of dishonesty and fabrication on other matters.

And The Guardian is second to none when it comes to hypocrisy, such as writing stories about companies that avoid paying UK Corporation Tax but not mentioning the fact The Guardian itself made a £300m profit in 2008 and paid £0 in Corporation Tax.

Guardianista inadvertently makes case for UK not assisting Ireland bail out

Deirdre Duffy (left) is a PhD candidate and researcher in social policy at the University of Nottingham. She is also co-editor of the blog Human Rights in Ireland, which is part of the Guardian Legal Network.

This of course in the eyes of the Guardian makes her suitably qualified to talk about economics in a piece on Comment is Free and declare that the UK is little better than Ireland economically, posing the question ‘Ireland has received a media bashing over its economic policy – so why is the UK replicating its mistakes?’. Ms Duffy goes on to say:

Call me cynical, but it doesn’t look like the UK is doing much better than its neighbour. It’s true, Ireland’s in trouble. And yes, it’s going to cost us all. As the Guardian reported, the cost to the UK taxpayer of bailing out the Irish economy will be in excess of £7bn. Not only this, but other EU countries such as Portugal already fear Ireland’s toxic debt will have a contagion effect. But in many ways, the UK is in a worse situation.

Though Ireland’s debt is undoubtedly huge (£90bn), it’s a drop in the ocean compared with both the UK’s current national debt (£950bn) and the total personal debt of UK households (£1,457bn). Estimates suggest that by 2015, the average debt of every household in the UK will amount to more than £70,000 – almost three times the current national average household income. At present, 1,753 people in the UK are made redundant daily, while 787,000 people have been unemployed for more than 12 months. In 2009, a property was repossessed every 10 minutes. Every four minutes, someone in the UK is declared insolvent.

The rest of her piece is typical Guardian big statist exercise in economic illiteracy where she decries Irish spending cuts that, if they had not been made, would have actually resulted in that country’s national debt being even bigger than it already is.

But in the segment quoted above Duffy makes a valuable point. For if as Duffy says the UK is in a worse situation than Ireland and our national debt dwarfs that of our celtic neighbour, what business does the UK have finding at least £7 billion (probably through additional government borrowing) to contribute to the EU mandated bail out fund? Surely that is the kind of economic insanity she is trying to rail against.

All it shows is that people like Deirdre Duffy don’t think things through. They put all the dots on the page but mentally they are incapable of connecting them to see the picture in front of them. But then, that is why they hold the ludicrous ideological positions they do and why they are writing in that pisspoor paper to begin with.

Peter Preston owes families of Falklands war dead an apology

Never underestimate the capacity of the self loathing liberal elite to indulge in supremely distasteful and arrogant commentary. Why did Peter Preston pick today, Remembrance Sunday, of all days to publish this insulting article on the Guardian online?

On the day people fell silent to remember the sacrifice of men and women who died in the service of this country, this pompous prat serves up a piece called ‘Ditch the Falklands – It makes no economic or political sense to hang on to the Falklands, but no one will face the truth’. What a complete and utter prick this man is. He is an absolute moron. This is not the day to have a discussion about pounds, shillings and pence spent defending the Falklands after blood has been spilled to protect and uphold the self determination of the Falkland Islanders.

Some of those poppies and wreaths laid today at War Memorials around the world, including on the Falkland Islands, were to mark the sacrifice of the 258 British servicemen who died in the fight to retake this sovereign British territory from Argentina. Servicemen who endured appalling conditions to expel the invaders and free the British citizens who live there and absolutely wish to remain British. But to Preston on Remembrance Sunday it is more important to grandstand in the paper and try to appear profound by declaring that we should simply abandon the islanders for economic reasons – thus ensuring that the British servicemen who were killed, maimed and injured suffered for nothing. If any Briton should be abandoned it should be this washed up old hack.

It is hard to feel anything other than complete revulsion at Peter Preston. He is beneath contempt. I hope he didn’t dare show his grotesque face at a war memorial today, it would have been an hypocrisy of the worst kind. He couldn’t have been much more insulting if he had danced on the graves of those we lost. Incensed doesn’t come close to how I feel about this.

To resort to cliche, he is the kind of person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. He owes an immediate, unreserved and grovelling apology to the families of those who died.

The BBC and The Guardian – Why?

On Armistice Day and Remembrance Day many people think of wars in the past and ask the question, Why?  Ultimately wars stem from disagreements between leaders where at least one is playing power games, or from popular uprisings against leaders who forget they are merely stewards of their country and convince themselves they rule it in spite of the wishes of the people.

In every conflict there are people who are described as ‘fifth columnists’. These are people who clandestinely or otherwise undermine a larger group such as a nation from within, in order to help an external enemy. The don’t see the external entity as an enemy because they share its aims and are therefore comfortable to side against their own people. They engage in propaganda and work actively promote the aims of the external entity.

Of course the United Kingdom has people such as these. Outside of the political class the most visible fifth columnists can be found at the BBC and The Guardian newspaper. So it cannot come as a surprise that both supposedly serious news organisations – the BBC being the largest news gathering organisation in the world – have demonstrated yet more bias by omission today.

Both are guilty of deliberately ignoring the Herman Van Rompuy’s speech in Berlin, where as President of the European Council he said that the age of the nation state is over and the idea that countries can stand alone is an ‘illusion’ and a ‘lie’, while describing ‘Euroscepticism’ as dangerous and the way to war. Searches on both sites revealed the completely predictable absence of articles on the subject. Click on them to enlarge:


This takes us back to the original question. Why are these two organisations, that both benefits from taxpayers’ money – the BBC through the licence fee and the Guardian through public sector advertising revenues – making such crass and unjustified editorial decisions? Seeing as papers such as the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Times etc, recognise the messages in Van Rompuy’s speech are of significant public interest and affect this country the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the fifth column BBC and Guardian do not want people to be aware of the EU’s plans for Britain, because they endorse them and want their internationalist agenda to be achieved.

As we stop and remember on this very day those people who laid down their lives to defend and protect the freedom and self determination of the British people, we see before us two British institutions actively working to subvert those perspectives. We see two organisations who wish to see Britain subsumed into a federal Europe that is anti democratic and bent on eroding the hard won freedoms we take for granted. It is not just insulting, it is morally repugnant and utterly sickening.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive