Grumpy Old Sod Dot Com - an internet voice for the exasperated. Sick of the nanny state? Pissed off with politicians? Annoyed by newspapers? Irate with the internet? Tell us about it!

Send us an email
Go back


Our Wanker of the Week award
Captain Grumpy's bedtime reading. You can buy them too, if you think you're grumpy enough!
Readers wives. Yes, really!
More Grumpy Old Sods on the net
Sign our Guest Book

NO2ID - Stop ID cards and the database state





Following the revelation that the BBC is doctoring its news reports to avoid giving any credence to those who know that man-made global warming is a fraud, this from the excellent, authoritative but rather technical Climate Audit


Can it be any more apparent that the BBC is actively engaged in laundering environmental reports especially on climate to satisfy a few extremists? That what we read about climate history changes faster and more efficiently than even Winston Smith could have managed with his Speakwrite? Witness the constant changing of historical temperature data by James Hansen now being dissected on Climate Audit.

the new politburo

This is not simply a scandal, it is a crisis reaching to the foundations of our democracy - that news and information be disseminated by a Free Press without fear or favour to the Powers that be, nor to extremists and radicals seeking the overthrow of democracy by stealth through a crisis which bears all the hallmarks of being manufactured?
Just imagine, for a moment, what a global emissions trading scheme would look like: no Western democracy would have any control over the price of energy even in its local markets, its entire economy being subject to minute bureaucratic control of everything from the gas heater in the house to energy required to produce steel. Without any control of the cost of energy, food prices would inevitably rise and a black market in basic foodstuffs would appear (this is what happened during the fall of the Soviet Union) including a resurgent Mafia-style criminal underclass.
What then, would be the point of voting for any party? Or of democracy itself? What state could withstand the inevitable social turmoil when basic foodstuffs become more expensive than the poor can afford because the market has been rigged?
(Er, excuse me? Aren't we there already? What is the point of voting in the UK now, when there is almost no difference between the parties, and nobody in power takes the slightest notice of our opinion? And isn't the current rice shortage making a basic foodstuff beyond the reach of many of the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world? Right now, a rice ration is being distributed by the army in Bangla Desh - GOS).
It is axiomatic that any State, no matter how brutal, must eventually fall when it has lost control of the price of food - witness Zimbabwe right now, or the fall of the Soviet Union, or the fall of Suharto in Indonesia, or the Weimar Republic in the early 1930s.
Make no mistake, and speaking as a classical liberal, we are looking at the most serious attempt to collectivize the world economy since the fall of Communism in the 20th Century and to render democracy moot in the Western World and beyond. Who speaks for the farmers of Kenya whose exports into the EU and beyond are the only thing between themselves and starvation and whose products are now being labelled with "airmiles" by Western environmental extremists?
Did any of us vote for the imposition of world energy cartel? I can't remember such a proposition being on any manifesto. But that's what it is.
All of this makes the betrayal of the BBC even to its own charter that much more dangerous to all of us who hold liberal democracy so dear. In the "Green Room" we see academics and activists talk blandly about population control (really? how?), the marginalization of democracy through a consensus of self-appointed "experts" and the need to somehow control the absolutely uncontrollable (the Earth's climate) via trying to moderate a single variable, carbon dioxide concentration, whose ability to control climate in any meaningful way is entirely absent from any paleoclimatic proxy?
Yet the opinions given by academics on subjects well away from their areas of specialization are published as if those opinions are unquestionable truths. Comments are censored prior to publication to prevent serious criticisms being made, and a false impression of support for the ludicrous and dangerous propositions is thereby created.
No right of reply is ever allowed except by that favourite abuse of propagandists - the "skeptic sandwich". Note that twice now, the BBC has announced that the work of Svensmark has been debunked, and twice Svensmark has replied showing that the studies are flawed and the BBC has refused to publish those replies.

The GOS says: The underlinings are mine.
There was a time when we regarded the BBC as the repository of all that was good about Britain - they were useful, informative, balanced, thorough and above all, truthful.
Alas, those days are past, and we now see them revealed as a mere mouthpiece for an authoritarian government.
Note that we don't describe them as a nest of lefty green shirtlifters, intent on pandering to each and every dotty minority. We don't. Really. Heaven forfend.
We would like to see the TV licence fee abolished and the publicly-funded BBC broken up, if they won't tell the truth. Commercial television may be a rotten thing, but at least we all know what constraints and pressures govern its activity. The secretive BBC with their shadowy connections to government, the left and the loony - who the hell knows what makes them tick?


Grumpy Old - homepage

Use this Yahoo Search box to find more grumpy places,
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.








Copyright © 2008 The GOS
This site created and maintained by PlainSite
Grumpy Old - homepage


Captain Grumpy's
- some older posts

ID cards
Old folk
Hairy man
Killer cows
The church
The Pope