BBC Blog Network

User Profile

FrankFisher

Listed below are comments made by FrankFisher between Saturday, 3rd October 2009 and Sunday, 6th December 2009 (7 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

Copenhagen Countdown: 2 days 10:15am on 06 Dec 2009 "Was interested to see Melanie Phillips (another cheer leader for the contrarians) got virtually no reaction from the audience when touting the same nonsense you see here. But Marcus Brigstock got lots of support when he injected some reality from his visit to the Arctic.Maybe the UK public is not as gullible as the contrarians here, and Gordo really does have a mandate."

Amazing how the BBC handpicking the QuestionTime audience for "balance" can consistently skew the mood eh? Who would have thought it? Oh and if you recall, when Mel was on the global gag was still in place - climategate was *verboten* on news bulletins and only those who searched out info from the blogs would have known the full story.

There's something very familiar about all this. Total control of the broadcast media, rewriting, unwriting and rewriting history again, "public" meetings packed with government stooges, dissidents branded by government as "sabouteurs" and "lunatics".... Maybe I just dreamed all that stuff about the Berlin Wall coming down?
Copenhagen Countdown: 2 days 10:04am on 06 Dec 2009 Don't talk about Climategate?

Erm, in the politest terms I can summon up, how dare you Richard?

"the more things actually matter - the closer events move to what governments really hold to be important, rather than what might seem important from some agenda or fancy formal title - the closer they guard information."

Uhuh - can I suggest another alternative? one you really should have figured out by this dispicable government's past history - "the closer they hide their info, the more likely it is to be pure bunk". Dodgy dossier? And I love the way you glide past the Aussie story - those liberals elected a new leader did they? And *why* did they have to do that? Oh yes, cus the last one was *obliterated* because of his warmist leanings. Isn't the BBC supposed to give us the full story?

And can we get any comment from the BBC, or yourself, on why climategate was a taboo subject for a fortnight, and then was *suddenly*, overnight,leading news bulletins? The story hadn't changed. Even the info Susan Watts presented on newsnight regarding the models being hopeless was common knowledge on the blogs within 48 hours of the leak - how come if the *story* hadn't changed, suddenly the BBC started covering it?

Shameb by the blogs? Instructions from your lizard-people overlords? Hmm?

BTW, "moderate" this and I'll only blog about it, so....
Climate change debate: 'calm, civilised, informative' 5:54pm on 24 Nov 2009 "The Earth is round and CO2 traps energy in the earths atmosphere."

What's your point?

We know this. We all know this.

Oh, you mean man made CO2 is the only CO2 that does this and will therefore cause us all to melt? Our survey said: WAWAAAAAAAH.

Give it up; this leak reveals disgusting behaviour and those involved are *not* what anyone should call a "scientist". Science is about open, transparent debate - these guys were devoted to avoiding that.
Hacked climate e-mails and FOI 4:14pm on 24 Nov 2009 "Does that not in itself undermine and subvert the peer-review process, something staff at CRU are now being accused of?"

Er, no. It doesn't even come close. What the CRU is accused of is backroom bullying, coercion and collusion to 1) push liberal editors from their posts (and I use liberal in its true sense) and 2) intentionally diminish the impact of countering papers by ensuring they would *not* be peer reviewed. They even tried to ge university acreditation withdrawn from opposing researchers.

THis is not science, thsi is McCarthyism in lab coats.
Hacked climate e-mails and FOI 3:03pm on 24 Nov 2009 "The hacking into the UEA’s ICT system certainly is law breaking; I hope the police catch and prosecute the perpetrator."

First, we don't know that any hacking was conducted. Looking at the emails an other info, eg harry_read_me, and the volume of info, it's more likely this was gathered and leaked by an insider - in this instance he may benefit from the protection of the whistlerblower act.

Further, leaking MPs expenses was illegal - I dont' recall people complaining then? There is a *clear* and undeniable public interest in the science of this, which affects all our lives, being conducted properly. Falsifying, cherrypicking and randomly stuffing data is not science. Leaning on journal editors is not science - getting guys dismissed for their views! Because they put both sides of a debate? This is science?

The emails reveal disgraceful behaviour. People should be fired. People should be prosecuted. And we should all demand that all the evidence - all the data - supposedly proving AGW is put in the public domain. I can't think of any other area of science where data is withheld in this way.
Copenhagen Countdown: 17 days 11:41pm on 23 Nov 2009 Oh this is fantastic stuff. So the BBC decides that quoting the incriminating emails, or even linking to perfectly respectable blogs that analyse them, is illegal? Fantastic!

Remind me, did the BBC doorstep members of the BNP whose names were illegally released? I dont' recall the BBC up here showing much restraint about identifying a BNP copper's name and address, and showing his front door. Nor do I recall much restraint on Squidgygate. Nor on Carol Thatcher's private conversations.

You really are the pits. The pits.

Still, I guess we're not yet at USSR levels where dissenters were carted off to mental asylums - I bet you can dream though eh? Cat's out of the bag BBC, and you have shown your true colours. Pure propagandists.
Not one but two major rows 8:11pm on 02 Nov 2009 Nutty professor? Professor David Nutt – MB, BChir, MA, DM, MRCP, FRCPsych, FMedSci - nutty? You're going native Nick - whatever you say and whatever you do, you can't help putting your foot in it. Been hanging round these labour thickoes too much.

Johnson created this crisis himself - unnecessarily. He's misrepresented govt policy and the terms the professor signed up to, he's misrepresented the professors words, arguments, papers - see here http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/11/david-nutts-controversial-lecture-conformed-to-government-guidelines.html

Just an absolute mess, from beginning to end. The *facts* of drug harm really dont' matter - it's about science, and how science must be free or it is not longer science. You, Nick, are trying to trivialise and spin at the same time - small beer again eh? - and once again you're failing, you're missing the public mood, you're too close to the politicians and too far from the story. Nutty professor... good grief.
Nick Griffin on Question Time 1:47pm on 23 Oct 2009 In truth Griffin was pretty poor, but that doesn't really matter. Look what was exposed to eight million people last night: that the mainstream political establishment doesn't think there is any such thing as an indigenous people in these islands. They think the whole concept is absurd. They joked about glaciers. Why are the English the *only* people in the world who are to be denied a homeland? And then, that the mainstream see no need to cap population growth caused by immigration - this would be "authoritarian". Another ten million - why not! That the mainstream, even though they didn't counter Griffin's arguments on Islam at all, still refuse to accept that the growth of Islam here is in any way harmful.Oh, and that the mainstream,a nd the BBC, are quite happy to put their faux differences apart to mount a group assault on anyone who disagrees.

Griffin is *one man*. He may be the figurehead, but he is not the movement. Nor is his grubby little group the only threat to the mainstream doctrines. Perfectly decent, liberal people, are sick of uncontrolled immigration, sick of throwing away everything that made this country good, sick of being told they have no right to expect things to remain as they were, sick of being told they must "celebrate" diversity...

A hard rain's gonna fall....
The right to offend? 11:50am on 16 Oct 2009 Did they pay you to write that Gavin? Do you figure impartiality is best handled by being mealymouthed? The BBC - any media organisation in fact - doesn't have to be impartial on free speech. Free speech is an unambiguous *good*. It is as necessary as oxygen.

"But sometimes it is a fine judgement as to whether exercising the right to offend stirs up hatred and violence too."

So wrong. The hatred and violence is not stirred up by the offended speech. It is stirred up by the reactions of those who refuse to accept that in this society, we are free to offend them. The Enlightenment, remember. I also remember the Motoons story - I remember the BBC's shameful refusal to broadcast them. Why was that?
Brown agrees to debate 1:28pm on 03 Oct 2009 He *hasn't* confirmed he will do it, has he Nick? *Again* he hasn't confirmed it,yet *again* you say he has. Shall we put it simply? he says he will do it, if his conditions are met - but he won't tell us what those conditions are!

Additionally, before we evens tart he's demanding control of the agenda! How is that a "debate"?

He's a joke - and anyone who takes these constantly revised policies seriously is a joke too.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

FrankFisher