Impartiality my arse

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

OFCOM has ruled that Channel 4 failed in its duty to be impartial and reflect a range of views when it broadcast the Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that set out to expose the lies around man made global warming.

But, strangely, Al Gore’s climate change propaganda, An Inconvenient Truth, can be shown in schools as long as the teacher tells the children that it doesn’t represent an alternative viewpoint.

Where’s the impartiality in that?

Global warming isn’t happening and that’s a fact.  It’s a fact that is confirmed by climate scientists on both sides of the climate change scam – sceptics and propagandists alike.  The lead author of the IPPC report on climate change was exposed as an ouright lying propagandist when he tried to whip up hysteria earlier this year by telling the worlds media that the Wilkins Ice Shelf was “hanging on by a thread” and in danger of collapsing because of climate change when it had already collapsed a decade previously.  Al Gore’s propaganda film was based on the IPPC report, as is the climate change policy of Federal Europe and its puppet governments.

The Manhattan Declaration, signed by 500 climatologists and other climate experts and the Oregon Petition, signed by over 31,000 scientists (9,000 of which are PhD’s), both refute the claims of the climate change propagandists and criticise Al Gore’s propaganda film yet they are ignored entirely in favour of a report authored by a liar, paid to “prove” climate change is down to human activity and apparently endorsed by only 2,500 scientists, 400 of which said that their names were added to the report without their knowledge.

Where’s the impartiality in that?

There is no fucking impartiality because if the truth was allowed to be broadcast, the lying propagandist scum who are helping to cause a global recession, the destruction of the global economy and hiking up taxes on the basis of a lie will be royally fucked.

Come the revolution, they will all be up against the wall.  Especially the Bishop of Stafford.  I’ve got a special lamp post reserved just for him.

Technorati Technorati Tags: ,


  1. stan (222 comments) says:

    The problem I’ve got with all this, is that research into global warming seems to be done by interest groups rather than independent researchers. The methodology behind the Oregon Petition is suspect to say the least –, and the Manhattan Declaration is littered with members of right-wing interest groups –

    I’m not saying that either of them are wrong because I just don’t know, but the authors of the reports are just as biased as Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

    The whole thing is of great concern to me because either the planet is doomed or someones making a whole load of cash out of a bunch of lies.
    Does anyone know of any independent research because I can’t find any.

  2. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Everyone is biased to some extent though Stan because they will have their own opinion. There are 31,000 signatures on the Oregon Petition, even if 50% of them were from biased industry groups – a very unlikely figure but let’s assume – then that’s still 4 or 5 times as many 2,900 scientists who endorsed the IPPC report on climate change without taking off the 400 people whose names were added without their knowledge.

  3. Stan (222 comments) says:

    Yes I understand that, and I’m not saying that they are wrong because I don’t know.
    It’s just odd that left wingers tend to believe in climate change whereas right wingers do not. Something as serious as this should be independent. Knowing that several of the scientists involved are funded by the oil and coal industry or the tobacco lobby does nothing for my scepticism.

    Besides, given that much of the research is done with computer model predictions and given that the Met office can’t predict a shower on a cloudy day in April, I’m not sure what to believe

  4. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Left wingers tend to believe that unity is the answer whether it makes sense or not, right wingers tend to be bolshy, argumentative buggers. Just a generalisation, obvously, but that’s the way it seems to me.

  5. Stan (222 comments) says:

    I take it you’ve never been to a radical left wing meeting : )
    You can have a perfect consensus of opinion regarding the entire agenda but at the end of the night you’ll still end up with half a dozen warring factions based around whether the coffee was fair trade and did the cow that gave the milk come from a workers collective.

    Right wingers just tend to obey the stern looking lady in black leather with the whip.

    Hmmm, perhaps I’m on the wrong side…….

  6. jerry (78 comments) says:

    I have always been wondering why oil prices have increased so heavily if its so bad for the enviorment and people are actually starting to consume less.On hearing the news of hybrid cars and more alternative energy,shouldnt the price of oil sink dramatically?
    I still think the human has at least a tiny impact on the climate of the earth but sometimes I wonder if its really that big or that some shock capitalists have seen their chance to make a load of money.

  7. Stan (222 comments) says:

    Firstly, worldwide oil consumption is actually increasing, especially with the emerging economies of China and India
    Secondly, oil isn’t just used as fuel. It provides plastics, asphalt, lubricants etc… In fact, many of the current price increases in food are due to increasing costs in oil-based packaging rather than the cost of the products themselves.
    Thirdly, oil production isn’t charity based. It’s a business. Oil production is regulated by profit margins rather than need. Production could be increased tomorrow and the price would fall, but the profit per barrel would be lower. The same goes for gas prices. Seen all the adds taken out by gas companies telling you how to use less gas? Do you think that they want less profit? Hell no. You use less but the price goes up to compensate.
    Then of course, the oil producing countries have the US by the balls. Saudi Arabia has massive investment in the USA, the removal of which would cause untold damage to its economy, as would the threat to price oil in euros per barrel instead of dollars.
    And finally, hybrid cars suck bigtime.
    All in all, the efforts of individuals to be green doesn’t really make that much difference when compared to the ecological damage corporations do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.