And I’ll cut back to the agenda you so doggedly pursue.

Your postings indicate far more than a passing interest.
Why don’t you want to tell us what motivates you to continue..??

Something or someone is driving you on.

But back to the topic of BBC deceit. This has been commented upon widly from many sources over a period of time. A quick search reveals these links and concerns for BBC’s conduct.

Yes, I’ve had a look thank you.
I’ll take the first one.

I know that Wiki isn’t terribly accurate, but for the purposes of debunking this crowd it’ll do.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation–whoever the hell they are….

“Funding Sources

The foundation itself has rejected FoI requests to disclose its source of funding on at least four different occasions, however as a charity, it is would normally not be required to report its sources of funding. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that “the GWPF wasn’t influential enough for disclosure to be merited”(my italics). Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics comments.

‘These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by…the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves…The GWPF was the most strident critic during the ‘Climategate’ row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders.”

No bias there then..??
And as I stated above–you’ve got no axe to grind then either..??
Don’t make me laugh–Grey Area is right.

Would you like me to go through the whole list and have a look at them..?

The trouble with people like you Steven is that make assumptions about people.
Because you assume everyone is either for you, or against you, you talk down to people. I’m neither for you or against you. I keep an open mind–as I always say to Charlie Hunt on here–I remain non aligned. However, I get really p*ssed off when people assume I’m stupid. I’m not non aligned then–I fight my own corner.

My own view is that something is happening to the climate but no one is quite certain what–that’s my view on it–end of.

So, who do you represent..?

Just what has the number of posts, on this very good forum, got to do with the validity of the comments on the issue of BBC deceit on AGW?

Steven

Because I asked you to share your agenda with the rest of us.
You obviously have one because you’ve spent more time on this thread than any other single subject since you joined the forum–even the aviation bit.

My assertion (which you largely ignored), and then selectively answered was was that you have one.
As I said, care to share??

Dear Steven.
I’m suspicious of you.
You turn up here with only 121 posts (not actually too much of an issue but an indicator I think) but you have a real axe to grind. The usual right wing suspects here appear to argue very regularly–as do the opposing leftists, but you’ve just popped up.
My suspicion is that you have an agends–care to share it..?
Ever been a young Conservative..?
I think you doth protest slightly too much.

My agenda is simple. I owe only allegiance to myself.
I remain non-aligned.

Andy

Actually, I was rather planning to fill the role of Corrector-General myself. 😀

Well I’m not prejudiced, I just hold everyone in equally low regard.
So I would be fair.

Otherwise can I be in charge of firing squads..??

A.

Mmm – I can see the term “crass stupidity” being open to rather wide misinterpretation!;)

No, just let me be the arbiter of it.

My rule would be that you can only be slow or stupid. The choice is yours but you can’t be both.

:confused: What collection’s that? 😀

Cheeky.
Too far north….!!!:p:p:p:p