Soft Focus 2174


Staring at the screen in disbelief as the BBC broadcast a preview of a quite literally soft focus “interview” of Theresa May by a simpering Nick Robinson. North Korean stuff. For Panorama.
“Prime Minister, a lot of people liked it when you described yourself as a bloody difficult woman”. Astonishingly sycophantic stuff from the state broadcaster.


2,174 thoughts on “Soft Focus

1 2 3 4 5 6 12
  • John A

    To get this thread back on topic:
    I saw a clip of the interview of May in white and Robinson like a nodding dog. May was talking about taking the deal she will ‘agree’ with Brussels back to parliament.
    The plain and obvious fact is that any deal with the EU must either make the Irish border the Irish Sea, or there must be a hard border of some sort between the north and south. May seems to think she can magic up some unicorn thinking third way acceptable to the EU.
    This means she is either:
    Totally deluded
    A total liar
    Totally stupid.
    In the words of the odious Thatcher, There is No Alternative.

    • N_

      Yes, you are 100% right. If Britain leaves the customs union and single market, then there must be a hard external EU border either in Ireland or, if Ireland unifies or NI goes independent, then down the Irish Sea. The Irish government must obey EU rules so long as the RoI stays in the EU. Britain cannot have separate trade and customs arrangements with individual EU countries. With all the huge amount of talk in the media about the EU, single market, customs union, etc., the Tory government expects people not to realise that what they are saying about Ireland is patently obviously – I mean logically – false.

      If A and B are not in a customs union or single market with each other, C cannot be in a customs union and single market with them both.

    • Andyoldlabour

      @John A,
      It would be quite possible to introduce a border similar to the one (just over 1000 miles long) between Sweden and Norway, where there are only sporadic checks onvehicles and where they have number plate recognition technology.
      It is simply the EU trying to cause problems by trying to enforce a hard border if and when the UK leaves the EU.

      • John A

        Norway is in the EEA. May has explicitly rejected that option.
        to quote EFTA:
        “The European Economic Area (EEA) unites the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) into an Internal Market governed by the same basic rules. These rules aim to enable goods, services, capital, and persons to move freely about the EEA in an open and competitive environment, a concept referred to as the four freedoms.”

        The four freedoms are the sticking point. Or more precisely one of the freedoms, that of movement of EU citizens. The Tories want freedom of money, goods and services but without agreeing to the Eu rules on these. Na ganna happen.

      • Blunderbuss

        I’m told that (before the Swedes switched to left-hand drive) the only “barrier” at the border was a couple of arrows directing you to switch to the other side of the road.

      • Jo1

        Not true.

        Both Ireland and NI are adamant they do not want a border.

        Repeatedly the Tories have kicked this issue into the long grass pretending they have a solution when they don’t. That is NOT the fault of the EU.

    • Robert Roddick

      He’s more than a sympathiser Irene he’s an out and out supporter. Check out his time at university.

        • MJ

          “Actually they’re all talking bollcks as you well know”

          Especially the Ukrainians, who have yet to release ATC records.

        • Jeremn

          This evidence needs to be considered. It is clear Ukraine had deployed operational batteries of BUKs to the Donetsk oblast that summer. Here is one, check the date:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MomxNHnUA&feature=youtu.be&t=4m54s

          The international community is accusing Russia of sending a single launcher deep into Ukraine (without, however, its associated command, radar and repair vehicles …. hmmm). So, on the one hand, several batteries (deployed for fear of a Russian invasion). On the other a single launcher (with just four missiles).

          Now what if the Ukrainian batteries were running drills using their own fighter-bombers? It is plausible. We know there were fighter-bombers in the air at the time as we have several eyewitnesses. Perhaps something went wrong? The troops manning these Ukrainian batteries were not well-disciplined or experienced veterans.

          I think you will find that the CIA bomb story was in the Russian equivalent of the Daily Express. It is not an official position.

          What do you say about the presence of Ukrainian BUKs around Donetsk? Is it not worth considering their presence and a link to the disaster?

          • Kempe

            The rebels had and still have no air arm so why would the Ukrainians need to deploy anti-aircraft missiles? It’s this fact that made the Russians switch from that conspiracy to the Su25.

        • Jeremn

          Can’t seem to reply below to your question about why the Ukrainians would deploy anti-aircraft batteries when the rebels had no aircraft. Well, first of all, of course, you should ask the Ukrainian generals why they deployed these batteries to ring Donetsk.

          Secondly, you should read material from the weeks before the disaster. The Ukrainian head of the defence council, Parubiy, was threatening to shoot down any Russian aircraft which might violate Ukrainian airspace. See here:

          https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-russia-protests/ukraine-protests-to-russia-over-airspace-violations-idUSKBN0F913T20140704

          They feared Russian air support for the rebels, you see.

        • Borncynical

          “this article from RT says it couldn’t have been a BUK”
          I myself have no idea or suspicion as to whether it was a BUK, a fighter jet, a combination of the two or anything else. This latest information doesn’t in itself confirm that it was a BUK that was responsible. But what it does appear to support is that the BUK parts found at the crash site were from a BUK missile in the hands of the Ukrainian forces. How could that be, in any circumstances? There were suggestions early on after the incident that missile parts had been planted at the crash site specifically in order to indicate that a BUK missile had brought down the plane. That may still be the case.
          And before you say that the BUK could have got into the hands of pro-Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine, as part of their defence submitted to the JIT, the Ukrainians specifically assured them that all their BUKs were accounted for.

        • mog

          Kempe,
          you are always wrong.
          Russian Defence ministry have not previously stated officially that MH17 was brought down by aircraft cannon fire.
          This matter can only be resolved through a genuinely independent investigation. Unfortunately the JIT include the Ukrainian (Neo-fascists) but excludes the Russian government representatives. It is a simple matter of judicial protocols that one suspect can not have veto power over an investigation.
          But I think you know this and are here to boost the official Western government narrative on just about everything.

          • glenn_nl

            What do you mean, “just about” everything? I am unaware of any official position Kempe has not thrown his weight behind.

          • Kempe

            Yes well the Russians would love to veto the JIT investigation for obvious reasons.

            I can remember posters here vigorously pushing the “fighter jet” theory when it was flavour of the month now things have changed once again.

            The Dutch have asked for the latest Russian evidence (or should that be “evidence”) and it’ll be interesting to see what they make of it. One might ask why it’s taken five years.

          • Hmmm

            Console yourselves with the knowledge that if Kempe had been born a Russian he’d believe all the bullshit propaganda they belch out.

          • pretzelattack

            the russians generally knew bullshit, there is no truth in pravda or news in izvestia was the common saying. i guess both americans and brits are exceptionally naive.

        • Yevgeny

          You are a lier. I went to your RT link and could not find that “it couldn’t have been a BUK.
          Direct quote from there:
          “The Russian Defense Ministry shared radar data pointing to other possibilities in July – including an attack by a Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 fighter jet, which was said to have been tracking the passenger plane.”

          • Borncynical

            Kempe (19.32)
            And I suggest you reread my post to you above at 16.53 which makes nothing the Russians have said inaccurate (at least as yet). In addition to that, the whole inquiry has been dictated by biased (if not corrupt) manipulation and subterfuge in order to pin the blame on the Russians from the outset.

          • Yevgeny

            Kemper, the simplest way to show that you are not a liar is to quote from your link. It is a very short article. You cannot because there is no such assertion. There are opinions of “experts”, pilots, that’s it. You are aware how many wrong opinions by “experts” are posted in ANY Western news. There were not a single assertion from Russian officials, but “opinions”. Russian officials ALWAYS begged for investigation before assigning any blame. Chemical attacks in Syria, Scripals, snipers on Maidan, wink-wink….etc.
            Even if you believe in your assertion, it does not make you less of a liar. Because you prefer to fool yourself rather than see facts.

        • Yevgeny

          About your (Kempe) another unfounded claim: “The rebels had and still have no air arm so why would the Ukrainians need to deploy anti-aircraft missiles?”
          If you tracked Ukrainian news closely, you’d notice that a theme “Russians are coming” was constantly being injected into Ukrainian media. So, you either have to admit that those “news” were complete bullock and misinformation, or that Ukrainian army was preparing to perform an intercept of a Russian intruder jet. Again, not “rebels'”, but Russian military jet.
          The fact that Ukrainian BUKs were there is well established by Ukrainian’s news (sic!). There was a report about military drills with Ukrainian BUKs just few days before the tragedy.

      • Agent Green

        Fairly clear all along that the plane was shot down by the Ukrainian Military, who then covered everything up with the help of their Western partners.

    • Isa

      Very interesting and irrefutable I may add . The strangest thing is the total silence from any western media outlet . It’s been at least two hours since the press statement and not a word I can find .

        • Isa

          Kempe, you certainly seen hell bent on blaming Russia .

          Y

          As today’s press conference and communications intercept of Ukrainian officials has shown I’m quite sure you are wrong . The UK and US may well scream no , but don’t forget there’s a whole world out there apart from the two former most powerful and conniving governments . Let’s see what China, Malaysia especially and some other European countries have to say .

          Let’s see what the UN has to say and let’s hope bellingcat disappears as a relevant useful idiot once and for all . Hopefully in jail where he belongs , together with many others .

      • Tom Welsh

        John Helmer explains the crickets (see option 3 below):

        “The first twelve minutes of the press conference today were no less than major league Russian trolling against the MH17 JIT. Here’s why, JIT now has these three options:

        1) Admit a Ukrainian Buk missile shot down the Malaysian Boeing. (not gonna happen)
        2) Admit the items presented at the 24 May presser were just props. (Oops, why?)
        3) Let the crickets do the talking or come with a lame excuse”.

        http://johnhelmer.net/the-mh17-missile-goes-home-to-ukraine/

    • Soothmoother

      Contrast with the millions killed in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen. Regular suicide bombings kill hundreds. Where’s the outrage for these dead people. All of the political parties are silent on this. Most of the House of commons want more bombs dropped.

      • Antonyl

        Those many violent deaths are not interesting because not killed directly by zionists. Indirectly all are dead because of zionists plus the rest of the world population is financially controlled by other jcws, including the protectors of Mecca with all their oil. Islamists are extremely tolerant peace loving feminists didn’t you know?
        5 minutes up max…..

        • Alex Westlake

          Have you also noticed how all the usual suspects who regularly complain of “Islamophobia” have had virtually nothing to say about the genuine political oppression which the Uyghurs in the west of China are facing?

          • Deb O'Nair

            “genuine political oppression which the Uyghurs in the west of China are facing?”

            As opposed to fake political oppression? The ‘genuine political oppression’ maybe related to the fact that 5,000 Uyghurs (which is a number equivalent to dozens of battalions, or a few regiments, and heading toward the size of an entire army division) have been fighting alongside NATO backed Jihadis in Syria and they are now beginning to return to China. The paranoia of the Chinese about having a number of regiments of NATO proxy head-chopping Jihadists within their borders is perhaps understandable.

          • Stonky

            “Have you also noticed how all the usual suspects who regularly complain of “Islamophobia” have had virtually nothing to say about the genuine political oppression which the Uyghurs in the west of China are facing?”

            The reliability of these claims can be judged on the basis that the Guardian has been peddling a story a day for the last week or so on the evil Chinese and their oppression of the heroic Uyghurs. They naturally have nothing to say about the thousands of Uyghur jihadis in Syria.

    • Andyoldlabour

      I have the video saved where Clark describes all of this, but have never seen a mention of it in any MSM – how strange?

      • Garth Carthy

        That’s right: We shouldn’t expect the media to take sides, but if they did their job properly they would at least present unpalatable facts that don’t necessarily fit the establishment narratives.

      • remember kronstadt

        like the idea of a citizen led response – then i thought about amazon, internet and fast food. as it’s national governments who have to (if you’re lucky) manage the big numbers they’re the ones who can push back.

  • Blunderbuss

    Just heard a mention of Novichok at the Lib Dem conference. Apparently, it’s not only Novichok that is keeping tourists away from Salisbury, it’s inadequate roads.

    • Jo1

      Oh. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that Novichok at the LibDem conference was keeping people away from there and that’s why hardly anyone turned up.

      • Tom Welsh

        ” I thought you were saying that Novichok at the LibDem conference was keeping people away from there and that’s why hardly anyone turned up”.

        Apart from the obvious fact that Novichok seems to be fairly harmless, the LDs themselves do a superb job of keeping people away. Apart from anything else, what are they FOR?

  • Xavi

    In 2013 the BBC Trust, headed by Tory peer Rona Fairhead, commissioned a major independent content analysis of the corporation’s news, politics and economics coverage. The eventual report by Cardiff University, entitled Hard Evidence, found glaring right-wing bias across the board.

    Hardly surprising when the Director of News and Current Affairs, who ultimately determines what is reported, and how it is framed, was a former editor of Murdoch’s Times. On-screen, the chief political correspondent who conducted this ‘interview’ with May is a former president of Conservative Students. The anchor of its flagship political shows, the Daily Politics and This Week, is another ex-Murdoch editor. The host of Newsnight for a generation was an avowed Tory. His successor has penned a book calling for a “streamlined” state. Just a fraction of the well-known Tories parading in plain sight and filtering news and political coverage at the BBC.

    It would be intrigued to see whether anybody who maintains that the BBC is balanced or leftwing could provide a countervailing list of similarly high-profile and influential left wingers at the BBC. Or perhaps identify an independent content analysis of the BBC’s news, politics and economics coverage that identifies balance, much less leftwing bias..

    • Rhys Jaggar

      The BBC is biased in all sorts of ways, but it does not follow any one party’s manifesto.

      1) The BBC runs climate change rhetoric which is flagrantly leftist.
      2) The BBC has run a barrage of pro EU stuff for years.
      3) The BBC never stops its gay/women/black/Muslim agenda, traditionally Left positions.
      4) The BBc is flagrantly pro-Washington, anti Russia in its foreign policy.
      5) The BBC is increasingly promoting US interests on its sports pages.

      Put simply, the BBC is routinely biased on most things, but not in a party political way.

      • Xavi

        Well its certainly true that the BBC promotes a neoliberal, neocon agenda that seeks to entrench socio-economic inequality and US hegemony. But that agenda is now adhered to by only one of the two major parties and it isn’t Labour.

        (The beeb’s pro-EU stance is that of the Canary Wharf/ Cameron-Osborne-Blair wing of the Tory party. Its ‘oh so tolerant of minorities’ shtick has been used as a smily face facade for pitiless neoliberalism for at least two decades now, its purpose should no longer be fooling anybody. Cameron introduced gay marriage at the height of his austerity regime. Costs the Tories and their donors nothing.)

        The driving purpose now of the BBC and its Tory functionaries is to keep the Conservatives in power and Corbyn out.

      • Rowan

        @Rhys Jaggar. ” The BBC is routinely biased on most things, but not in a party political way.” This is because it is globalist, and so are the dominant fsactions in both parties. All the positions you list are in fact globalist, meaning roughly, a CIA-centric or Mossad-centric one-world thousand-year Reich.

      • Ian

        What on earth are you on about, re its ‘gay/black/muslim agenda’ ‘US sports interests’ and its ‘climate change rhetoric’? Or are you colonel blimp in disguise? Such tory retro tripe.

        • Blunderbuss

          You don’t have to be a colonel blimp to be sceptical of climate change alarmism. I’m sceptical of climate change alarmism but I’m also a massive fan of nationalization so am I right or left?

          • pretzelattack

            you do have to be scientifically illiterate, though, or paid by oil companies, or a retiree (probably an engineer). i’m taking the phrase “climate change alarmism” in it’s usual sense, that of denying that humans are causing the climate to change.

          • Blunderbuss

            @pretzelattack

            I’m not scientifically illiterate, I’m not paid by an oil company, I am a retired chemist. I’ve looked at the evidence for human-caused climate change and I find it very unconvincing.

          • Clark

            Blunderbuss, this is what convinced me:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History

            “The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838 and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, who measured the radiative properties of specific greenhouse gases”

            That increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide will cause the surface temperature to rise simply follows from measurable properties of CO2. The increase of CO2 concentration has been and is being measured and plotted, as is the rise in temperature. The expected effects are seen – loss of polar and glacial ice, more powerful storms etc. All that remains is to gamble on whether negative or positive feedbacks will win out as the temperature rises. It’s better not to find out the hard way that positive feedback does kick in.

          • Clark

            Blunderbuss, it isn’t Wikipedia that convinced me. That was just a reference for the radiative propertied of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. These are simply objective facts which can be looked up in many text books, or if we’re really suspicious we could redo the simple 19th century experiments and calculations of Fourier, Pouillet, Tyndall and Arrhenius for ourselves.

            If I link to a Wikipedia article that says coal is black, do you dismiss it because it came from Wikipedia? You’re a chemist; is Wikipedia’s copy of the periodic table suspect?

            Please reply to me again on this basis.

          • Blunderbuss

            @Clark

            The problem is that Wikipedia only publishes evidence which supports the CO2 theory. Evidence which doesn’t support the CO2 theory is dismissed as “pseudoscience”. I don’t dispute that CO2 contributes to climate change but my claim is that this contribution is trivial. CO2 is only one of many contributors to climate change. See this, for example:

            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roger_Higgs/publication/325805849_Global_warming_ended_in_2016_proof_that_the_sun_not_CO2_drives_Earth%27s_climate/links/5b811bd1a6fdcc5f8b65f5a6/Global-warming-ended-in-2016-proof-that-the-sun-not-CO2-drives-Earths-climate.pdf?origin=publication_detail

            To get the big picture one needs to study climate change over millions of years, not just the last 200 years. Climate change has been happening ever since the earth was formed. This is why I put my faith in geologists, not climate scientists. Thanks for engaging in a sensible debate, not a screaming match.

          • Ian

            Blunderbuss, my credence is not required or at stake. The evidence is overwhelming, there is a mountain of research and observation.Whether you are unconvinced or not is neither here nor there. i daresay someone can pop up and say they are ‘unconvinced’ about evolution or molecule biology. So what?
            As to the feeble charges that it is all a conspiracy – well that is the knee jerk response to anything on this blog which doesn’t accord with some ingrained prejudices of people who have no interest in the world outside their window.

          • Blunderbuss

            @Ian

            The propaganda is overwhelming, but not the evidence. The IPCC simply ignores all climate change drivers other than CO2. I’m not saying they are lying, just that they are not telling the whole truth. See also my reply to Clark above.

          • Clark

            Blunderbuss, you can look up the radiative properties of CO2, methane etc., and Wikipedia is as good a place as any for that; there isn’t some alternative set of figures. Gases with larger molecules are greenhouse gases. O2 and N2 are smaller molecules so they don’t contribute, so we’re only concerned with the change in absolute concentration of the gases with larger molecules.

            Due to industrial emissions, greenhouse gases are at significantly higher concentrations than in the last 20 million years, and the surface temperature is rising in response – if it didn’t, we’d have a scientific mystery to explain.

            The only question remaining is what happens when the surface temperature rises. Do sufficient negative feedbacks keep it in check, or do positive feedbacks kick in and send it soaring? That’s a hideously complex system to model, and I really don’t want to find out for real with the only planet we have.

          • Blunderbuss

            @Clark

            Quote: “Due to industrial emissions, greenhouse gases are at significantly higher concentrations than in the last 20 million years”.

            Not so, there have been periods in the last 20 million years when the CO2 concentration was higher than it is now and the temperature was lower than it is now. There is no direct correlation between CO2 conc. and temperature because there are too many other factors at play, notably variations in the sun’s magnetic field.

          • Clark

            “there have been periods in the last 20 million years when the CO2 concentration was higher than it is now”

            So far as I know, this simply isn’t true. Check for cherry-picking.

            “There is no direct correlation between CO2 conc. and temperature”

            Yes there is. Larger molecules re-radiate more heat, in lower wavebands. Higher greenhouse gas concentrations will increase the temperature. This is inescapable, unless masses of general science is wrong.

            Of course there are other factors at play, but so what? You’re in a room with a gas fire, a fan heater and a water-filled radiator, all running. You can’t say that turning up the gas fire won’t increase the temperature because of other factors at play.

          • Blunderbuss

            @Clark

            CO2 conc. and temp. I will look for a source for this.

            Gas fire analogy. My point is that the contribution from CO2 is tiny. If you have the gas fire on and you light a candle, the heat from the candle will increase the room temperature but I doubt if it would be enough to be measurable.

          • Clark

            I think the original 19th century calculation is that a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause a 4 centigrade increase, though that has been refined since. A 4c increase in global, average temperature is clearly highly significant.

            It will also have knock-on effects, many of which seem susceptible to positive feedback. I dread to think what’s going to happen when the Arctic ice has all gone, and we’re not far from that. Firstly it’s keeping the ocean temperature down like ice cubes in a drink do. Secondly the ice is white and hence reflects heat; dark water will absorb more. Then there are the cold, solid methyl hydrate deposits, already releasing copious methane from thawing permafrost.

          • Blunderbuss

            @Clark

            My point is that climate change (and the resulting sea level rise) will happen anyway, even if we all stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, because CO2 is only a tiny part of the problem. The main driver of climate change is the sun’s magnetic field and there is nothing we can do about that. All the money we are spending on trying to eliminate fossil fuels would be much better spent on building up sea defences. The Dutch are very good at this.

          • Clark

            1st graph 1850 to 1910 duration 60 years,
            temperature anomaly -0.32 to -0.39, change -0.07

            2nd graph 1910 to 1940 duration 30 years,
            temperature anomaly -0.51 to -0.05, change +0.46

            3rd graph 1940 to 1977 duration 37 years,
            temperature anomaly -0.08 to -0.155, change -0.075

            4th graph 1977 to 2001 duration 24 years,
            temperature anomaly -0.04 to +0.32, change 0.36

            5th graph 2001 to 2014 duration 13 years,
            temperature anomaly 0.443 to 0.404, change -0.039

            Summary:
            Graphs 1, 3 and 5 cover 110 years, and together show a change of -0.184
            Graphs 2 and 4 cover 54 years and together show a change of +0.82

            So these graphs show about 4.45 times as much warming as cooling, and the warming took place in about half the time.

            I trust I don’t have to point out that Kenneth Richard has done some very creative cherry-picking by presenting the data the way he has.

          • Clark

            Blunderbuss, I’m going to take a guess here that Kenneth Richard chose his start and end points rather carefully out of the overall, continuous temperature record to get the effect he was looking for, choosing local maxima and local minima. Considering how much longer it took me to compile and calculate my summary, compared to how long it took you to write a paragraph and link someone else’s “work”, would you be prepared to go and check?

          • Blunderbuss

            @Clark

            Yes, the IPCC do cherry-picking too. You and I will have to agree to disagree. You accept the sources you trust and I accept the sources I trust.

          • glenn_nl

            @Blunderbus: So having started to make a case, only to see it get rather comprehensively demolished, now you’re going for the “We’ll agree to disagree” line? Why didn’t you say that in the first place, instead of pretending you had a good argument, when you clearly have not?

            It does strike me as incredible that people like you are willing to argue the toss, dismiss the world’s scientific consensus on the subject, come up with vague and insubstantial “evidence” that nothing is happening. Or if it is, it’s not that bad. And if it is bad, it has some other cause than the fact we are producing gigatons of CO2 – every year – substantially destroying the world’s forests, and so on. Nah, that couldn’t have the slightest effect – it must be something entirely unrelated.

          • Clark

            Blunderbuss, 13:42:

            “You accept the sources you trust and I accept the sources I trust”

            Blunderbuss, I worked PURELY from YOUR source! You should be thanking me for pointing out how this charlatan deceived you!

          • Blunderbuss

            @Clark

            No. You seem to have an unquenchable desire to prove that you are right but I don’t. If you think I’m wrong, that’s OK – it doesn’t bother me. Don’t worry – I don’t run the world so my opinion is not going to destroy the planet.

          • Clark

            Blunderbuss, 13:42:

            “You accept the sources you trust and I accept the sources I trust”

            This is science. Science is not about picking authority figures and accepting or rejecting their word. I was hoping my DIY summary would have made that clear. We can do science for ourselves, but we have to wise up to the tricks of those with vested interests.

          • Blunderbuss

            @glenn_nl

            You criticize me for downplaying the effect of CO2. Why not criticize yourself for ignoring the effect of the sun’s magnetic field? Do you deny that the sun’s magnetic field has any effect?

          • glenn_nl

            @Blunderbuss : Why don’t you reference how the climate is changing because of magnetic radiation, and maybe give us a quick summary? It would be interesting to know how the IPCC, NASA and so on have overlooked what you say is a more likely explanation.

            I do think you deserve some criticism for ignoring Clark, when he took the time to look at a source _you_ referenced, and found serious flaws in it. If that’s how you ignore how dodgy your preferred source material is, when it is directly pointed out to you, then it’s not just a matter of favouring one source over another. You’re choosing the source you like the conclusion of, just like those same sources worked backwards from the conclusion they wanted.

          • Clark

            Blunderbuss: – “You criticize me for downplaying the effect of CO2”

            To Glenn_nl, I realise, but try not to take it personally. If certain effects are going to take our world over a threshold, we should pick the ones we have some influence over. It looks like you’ve done considerable reading on anti global warming sites. I advise you that there’s an extensive, organised network warping the facts to try to influence your vote.

            14:17: “@Clark No. You seem to have an unquenchable desire to prove that you are right”

            I try not to take it personally too, though of course I have an ego just as everyone does. But I see it as a matter of standing up for honesty, and exposing dishonesty. Kenneth Richard dishonestly manipulated data. He misled YOU among others, and I object to him having done that.

            Truth > Justice > Peace

            It’s a dependency chain; each objective is dependent upon the preceding one.

          • Clark

            Blunderbuss, 14:32: – “You have picked an authority figure – the IPCC”

            Where? I referenced the textbook radiative properties of CO2, and the article you linked yourself!

          • glenn_nl

            Here’s a nice quote, concerning the notion that solar radiation (not “magnetic radiation”) or other factors might be more important than CO2 production:


            Earth’s historic climate changes have included ice ages, warming periods and other fluctuations in climate over many centuries. Some of these historical changes can be attributed to changes in the amount of solar radiation hitting the planet. A drop in solar activity, for example, is believed to have caused the “Little Ice Age,” a period of unusually colder climate that lasted from about A.D. 1650 to 1850, according to NASA. However, there is no evidence that any increase in solar radiation could be responsible for the steady increase in global temperatures that scientists are now recording, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ )

            In other words, natural causes cannot be held responsible for global warming. “There is no scientific debate on this point,” NOAA says.

            Over 197 international organisations agree that the cause of climate change is human produced CO2 emissions. http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php .

            Naturally, they’re all in on a scam. Of course they are.

            Final word from Josef Werne, a professor of geology and environmental science at the University of Pittsburgh. (So what would _he_ know about it, eh?):

            “In all honesty, anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is _not_ a scientific debate, it is a political/economic debate.” According to Werne, the relevant question is not, “Is there human-induced climate change?” The question that we should be focused on is, if anything, “What should we do about human-induce climate change?”

            https://www.livescience.com/37152-global-warming-causes.html

          • glenn_nl

            @blunderbus: Thanks for the sciencemag reference, but is that really the ‘smoking gun’ you appear to believe? Have you actually even read it, because the abstract claims nothing more than the notion that cosmic rays may have an effect on clouds, which may have a further effect on climate. Seriously – did you even read it?

            Look at it below. “It has been proposed” – not demonstrated, not proven. Proposed. The observations come from one observation of a single solar cycle. These observations themselves are open to question – this is all in the abstract itself!

            Further investigations are needed, it says.

            Also note, this article is 16 years old. I imagine the follow-up must be extensive, right? You’ve surely got all that to hand, since this is what you’re hanging your hat on, right?

            There’s a difference between solar rays and magnetism, which you kept claiming was the problem. You do know the difference between magnetism and radiation…. right?

            Abstract produced below, registration is required for the entire thing.
            ————————————–
            Abstract

            It has been proposed that Earth’s climate could be affected by changes in cloudiness caused by variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays in the atmosphere. This proposal stems from an observed correlation between cosmic ray intensity and Earth’s average cloud cover over the course of one solar cycle. Some scientists question the reliability of the observations, whereas others, who accept them as reliable, suggest that the correlation may be caused by other physical phenomena with decadal periods or by a response to volcanic activity or El Niño. Nevertheless, the observation has raised the intriguing possibility that a cosmic ray–cloud interaction may help explain how a relatively small change in solar output can produce much larger changes in Earth’s climate. Physical mechanisms have been proposed to explain how cosmic rays could affect clouds, but they need to be investigated further if the observation is to become more than just another correlation among geophysical variables.

          • Blunderbuss

            @glenn_nl

            “In all honesty, anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is _not_ a scientific debate, it is a political/economic debate.”

            Actually, it’s a religious debate. I have blasphemed by questioning the authority of your god, the IPCC. You will never be satisfied until I confess my sin and ask for forgiveness.

            I’m not going to confess my sin so I’m not going to waste any more time on this.

          • Clark

            Blunderbuss, neither myself nor Glenn_nl referenced the IPCC, and in my analysis of the graphs you linked, I most definitely did science, not religion.

            It seems more likely that the IPCC is your devil rather than my or Glenn_nl’s god.

          • Mighty Drunken

            “The IPCC simply ignores all climate change drivers other than CO2.”
            This is untrue and shows you haven’t bothered to read the IPCC WG 1 reports.

        • N_

          The BBC pushes climate change very heavily indeed but that’s the agenda of global big business and I’d call it right wing not left wing. It has also always talked about the EU as if it were a foreign country, and I never once heard it refer to the EU as “we”. Nowadays it talks about the prospect of the EU forcing Greece or Ireland to do this or that, in language which is practically Faragist although delivered of course in a different tone. It’s pro-Brexit. I can understand why some might think otherwise, and if there is a second referendum you may be surprised. As for point 3, puh-leeze! The BBC is run by conservative, white, straight, raving monarchist men.

          • N_

            That organisations such as the BBC and the Church of England can appear as “left wing” or “left wing on some issues” to so many people in the country says a lot about the country.

          • Clark

            “The BBC pushes climate change very heavily indeed but that’s the agenda of global big business”

            No. If you think back before the Stern Review, global big business and their pocket-politicians dismissed global warming as unimportant, tree-hugging environmentalism, as they do with every restriction to profit-making activities. Stern made a genius move – he costed the effects of global warming, and suddenly big business took notice. Money over lives, as ever; coping with environmental changes was going to dwarf the profit margin.

            This left the more fossil fuel-based industries at odds with all the others; notably insurance. Some of the oil and coal companies started covertly funding a disinformation campaign, to manufacture doubt. It’s no surprise that the last scientific institutions to sign up to the emerging consensus were the oil petroleum geologists, but they couldn’t keep denying it in the face of all evidence without losing their scientific credibility.

        • Jude D

          What’s the BBC’s position on paedophilia? If Catholic priests are accused, they’re guilty by definition. On the other hand if deceased former Prime Ministers or other establishment big-wigs are acccused, their accusers are, by defintion, criminal scam artists and/or paranoid fantasists – even when the police say the allegations are credible. That is, by the way, not just the position of the Beeb, but of the entire mainstream media.

          • N_

            Meanwhile as far as I know the BBC aren’t ever sceptical about misdirectional and crazy policies such as banning parents from taking photographs of school plays at the schools their offspring attend on the grounds that the parents might be paedophiles or they might let the photographs fall into the hands of paedophiles. That kind of “Ugh, the general public!” attitude is right-wing through and through.

      • Sharp Ears

        Harding promoted Rachel Jupp to be Panorama producer. Note Jupp’s husband works for ITV.

        Jupp’s brother is married to Helen Hayes, Lab Dulwich & South Norwood. He is a comedian and actor. BBC1 BBC2 BBC Radio Four…get the picture?
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Jupp

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Jupp

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Hayes_(politician)
        https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=25310

        A nest of wealthy luvvies, some even Zionist supporters.

        • IrishU

          Whatever would we do without you rooting out Zionist conspiracies for us? We are truly blessed. Perhaps you could offer your services to the Government, I am confident they would welcome someone who can use Google and link together groups of people to for the sake of inventing conspiracies and increasing paranoia. Perhaps even a job with the Sun?

          • Moocho

            Why is it every time someone points out Zionist infiltration of Western institutions, the go-to term “conspiracy theory” etc is trotted out, like some kind of trump card. Why not answer the question head on – how many Zionists are there in the corridors of power? are their interests over represented? Google tells me the population of Jewish people in the Uk is 269,000, a tiny % of the overall population. Based on the numbers, their interests do seem to be over-represented. Why is that? The easiest example of disproportionate Zionist influence is when the British electorate had a choice between David Cameron (Zionist) and Ed Miliband (Zionist) to be prime minister! What about Blair’s so called “j e * i s h cabal”? This needs to be discussed, openly, especially given the downright inhumane nature of the policies of Israel (added to the fact that all non-Jews in Israel are officially second class citizens – now enshrined in Israeli law), which is, to my mind, given how politically correct we all are now, in direct contravention of what we are told it means to be British.

        • Observer

          “A nest of wealthy luvvies, some even Zionist supporters.”

          Thank them, for giving purpose to your life.

  • Fred Parry

    Glad I am not the only one who felt this! As soon as I saw/heard the interview, it reminded me of, and for a moment thought it was, a Tory Party Political Broadcast. No surprise it was Nick Robinson in his ex party worker’s guise! North Korea does spring to mind but what annoys me about that is the way people point their finger at such NK broadcasts but can’t see the similarity when it is on their own doorstep!

  • Jones

    the police have stated the cause of the two people taken ill in Salisbury last night is not novichok but have not said what it actually was, earlier it was stated they were suffering the same symptoms of novichok poisoning and were Russian, so why don’t they tell us what the heck it was i’d have thought anyone thinking of eating in Prezzos would like to know.

    • Rhys Jaggar

      Food poisoning does happen at restaurants, occasionally.

      I once puked up in the prawn sandwich area at Emirates stadium, after eating a dodgy egg sandwich in a US coffee chain 10 hrs previously.

      Terribly embarrassing.

      • Jones

        i’ve been ill through both bad water and bad food, the bad water made me ill quickest took less than an hour while the bad food took much longer about 3 hours, in both cases i felt the symptoms coming on for a while before i was sick, as they were in the restaurant it seems a bit quick for food poisoning to take effect if restaurants fault, though it may have been food eaten earlier in the day elsewhere.

        • Dish-Washer

          Off food can show its bad effects within as little as an hour or as much as ten days, depending on what is causing the upset. Off shell-fish is extremely dangerous and can lead to paralysis and death. Look up amnesic shellfish poisoning. The Skripals’ failure to remember much could be connected to shellfish poisoning.

      • SA

        It’s a ‘novichok ‘, a concept developed in the USSR and developed into a CW by many countries and finally weaponised in Salisbury by the British government. But it’s chemical name remains a secret.

  • Republicofscotland

    So the new Pakistan PM Imran Khan, is to visit Saudi Arabia, to further strengthen ties between the two countries.

    Khan, whose party full backs Pakistan’s archaic Blasphemy laws. In which someone can be executed on the hearsay of another, over insulting Islam, or it’s prophets. Will meet Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

    Saudi Arabia is also well known for its religious fanaticism, publicly beheading people and restricting womens rights, are widely known.

    Of course these as the west would call them are minor misgivings, and nowhere near as nefarious as the misgivings of the likes of Iran or Syria, or Libya, or even Iraq at one point.

    Simply put western powers choose which nasty regime should and should not, be tolerated. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia fall into the former category, whereas Syria and Iran, fit into the latter.

    https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/369838-pm-imran-khan-to-visit-saudi-arabia-tomorrow

    • Blunderbuss

      The key is the sin of public ownership. Iraq, Libya and Syria all have, or had, their oil in public ownership. Looking back, the government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran was destabilized because it nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and Egypt was attacked because it nationalized the Suez Canal.

    • Rhys Jaggar

      Look, this is like UK visiting Italy.

      It does not mean we are inviting the Mafia to run Britain, it means we wish to maintain cordial relations with a regional neighbour.

      I woud be amazed if Khan did not visit India, KSA, Iran, Turkey, Kazakhstan, China and a few more besides.

      It is what Presidents of countries do.

      • Republicofscotland

        Very true.

        However it does no harm to point out the wests hypocrisy when it comes to less democratic nations.

      • Observer

        Visit India? Not in a hurry. You are displaying your ignorance about the region.

        Saudia Arabia is HQ, HEADF******QUARTERS for Pakistan. It may even be possible some of wretched Pakistan’s nukes are stored in Saudi Arabia, who actually paid for the whole programme.

        And please kindly keep your friggin’ pukin’ tales off this site–some sense of decorum please.

  • mike

    All day, the BBC website has led with a lovely photo of the Maybot and her Brexit deal ultimatum. The state broadcaster is shamelessly pro-May, if not pro-Tory.

    For months, the state broadcaster (and the corporate media) seems to have focused on three simple messages: Corbyn is Hitler, Russia is evil and the Maybot is lovely.

    And to think people pay for this shite.

      • Deb O'Nair

        Which just goes to show that if you have some national security concerns (Turkey) which are in conflict with the objectives of a regional competitor being supported by Russia you can sit down and talk to the Russians and make a deal that both sides are happy with. Israel did the same; when it was concerned about Iranian forces in Syria they spoke to the Russians and a deal was achieved. If the Turks and Israelis can talk to Russia like grown ups then why can’t US/UK led NATO?

        • Borncynical

          Deb

          Exactly, there’s nothing like face to face discussions to ease tensions and hopefully make progress. Putin is always willing to meet with anyone and never resorts to foul, childish insults and disrespectful behaviour unlike those nearer to home. I know Erdogan and Putin have their differences over tackling issues like Syria but they seemed genuinely warm towards each other today and that can only be for the good.

    • Deb O'Nair

      The only time I watch BBC News or a BBC Political ‘show’ is when I want a bit of sport to see how long it takes before I’m shouting at the TV. It’s usually a few minutes, never more than 10. I switch off/over the instant the name ‘Boris Johnson’ is mentioned anywhere on the broadcast media.

      • Borncynical

        Boris Johnson is very good at insulting and offending people and I have never seen him express any constructive forward- thinking ideas of his own. He is a vacuous, ignorant and arrogant twerp. He only has to open his mouth and his foot’s right in there. To think of him being promoted in some quarters as potential PM material is absolutely astounding.

  • fwl

    Charles Bostock: thanks for mention of i24. It certainly seems to be willing to cover ME stories not featuring at the moment on the BBC, RTR etc. such as current missile attacks on Syria from sea.

      • fwl

        They are not posting the story of missile attack on Syria from sea whereas this is posted on i24 and Jerusalem Post. Why?

        • fwl

          Same thing on Harretz and according to Israeli media their sources are Syrian and other Arabic media.

          So how come what is described on Israeli media as an Israeli missile attack on Syria, and apparently possibly not so successful, appears to be taboo elsewhere?

          BBC, NYT, RTR, Bloomberg, Al Jazeera and favourite of many here RT just report Russian / Turkish deal.

          • fwl

            Maybe the Times of Israel story, which has some additional details re supposed targets being Syrian state chemical weapon factory, might explain the reluctance to report more widely.

            I’m just guessing and therefore shall avoid drawing further conclusions.

            But nonetheless I would expect to read about this tomorrow.

          • JohninMK

            They seem to have hit the factory area of Latakia town. Meanwhile, from the wires, as they used to say

            Pentagon spokesman Navy Cmdr. Sean Robertson tells VOA on Syrian claims of engaging missile targets over #Latakia “I can unequivocally say this is not us.”

            The SAA said in an official statement tonight that the strike was carried out by warplanes of the Israeli Air Force. The target was a technical industrial complex in Latakia and two service members were killed as a result.

  • JohninMK

    Seems the Idlib attack is off until December as Erdogan and Putin came to an agreement in Sochi today that allows for the Turks to have more time to sort things and a 15-20km DMZ.

    So, no ‘chemical weapons’ and White Helmets films and USFUK attack so WW3 has retreated for a while. As a byproduct it probably saves several thousand lives on both sides which must be a good thing even if some are terrorists but then they have a bit longer to fight each other to be local top dog/controller of smuggling etc.

  • Gruffalo

    North Korean stuff? I Soft focus lenses??
    What little I watched of tonight’s edition (before I got bored and watched University Challenge instead) reminded me of nothing more than an updated version of a Panorama from 1984 where Sir Robin Day interviewed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. See what you think here.
    You might loathe Thatcher’s politics, or have a distaste of Day’s dress sense, but you must admit there has been a fair bit of dumbing down over the decades. Different themes, bald heads and bow ties, but overall really very similar. The music was certainly better thirty years ago.
    Not too sure where Craig Murray is going with this one.

    • Ken Kenn

      You are ether a genuine character or you’re not.

      Impressionist know this and exaggerate accordingly

      You can’t paint on character Nick I’m afraid.

      Even Spitting image made a character out of John ( It’s still there! ) Major going by having him go more grey every Sunday.

      Nothing for Bremner to latch onto these days.

      Dead Ringers is fairly good but lacks Bremner – Bird and Fortune’s wit and insight.

    • Sharp Ears

      You have omitted mention of Robinson ‘s brown shoes. Très naff.

      As for the cosy May twosome at Chequers watching The Chase, whilst sipping tea from dainty bone china cups, it was comical. The BBC should do a remake of Mrs Dale’s Diary starring Philip and Theresa.

  • fwl

    Presumably Israel does not like the Russian / Turkish deal whereas US, UK and FR haven’t decided what they think about it or what to say about the post announcement strike, and Russia would also prefer to say nothing which might undermine it’s peace announcement.

    But still not to report it at all when openly reported in Israel? What’s going on?

    Is it so easy for something not to be reported?

    • fwl

      If that was just now then perhaps that report was a signal in lieu of something not reported on, but which has presumably not been agreed upon and which may have annoyed UK, but again just guessing.

  • Observer

    I’m gonna do a Tony Opmoc tonight.

    So, yesterday on a perfect balmy, Sunday afternoon, I popped into the park after a lovely cappuccino. I sat down on the first bench, occupied by just one other, whoever.

    A few minutes later these three little girls came running to me and asked if they could borrow a lighter, having mistakenly noticed my e-cigarette. So i explained it wasn’t a proper ciggy and they in turn explained they needed to light a birthday cake (true). They then turned to the young lady who i was sharing a bench with and she rummaged through her bag and in luck, came up with a lighter. She got a piece of the cake for it.

    Anyway, these goings on gave us opportunity to strike a conversation. Young and beautiful and creative. Name: Corrine, I had to get her to spell it for me. She apologised for it being unusual, I complemented her and asked if she had ever heard the song Corrina, Corrina by Steppenwolf–she made a note. And when I reached home i pulled it up on Spotify. It was the only version I had heard before, but then dozens of other versions came up, all beautiful and with their own take, all lovely but this one takes the Tony award, for me:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7eeb1MTkUY
    Wynton Marsalis & Eric Clapton – Corrine, Corrina

    Where did the music go (in this day and age)?

  • Mochyn69

    Listen up peeps, please don’t just bellyache about this appalling propaganda coup by the Maybot.

    Email BBC complaints aka Capita to let them know beyond any shadow of a doubt that we are just not buying it.

    https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?lang=en&reset=&uid=251889126

    Neu yn Gymraeg, yma

    https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?lang=cy&reset=&uid=460236598

    I’ve complained to the BBC, well Capita already!

    Dear Capita,

    Please tell the BBC that the forthcoming Panorama ‘interview’ with Theresa May by arch tory Nick Robinson, and the extensive trailing on TV and coverage in radio news broadcasts appears to be naught but a promotional puff piece for the prime minister with no in depth or forensic questioning as would be expected of a balanced public service broadcaster and as is indeed required bythe BBC’s Charter.

    This is but one instance of where the BBC has become nothing but a propaganda organ for the tory party and its credibility lies in shreds.

    Regards,

    I wonder when they’ll do a soft whitewash for Jeremy Corbyn, the Liberal leader and Nicola Sturgeon, in the interests of balance, you know!?

    .

  • JohninMK

    Holy shit!

    [i]A Russian military Il-20 aircraft with 14 service members on board went off the radars during an attack by four Israeli jets on Syria’s Latakia province, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

    Air traffic controllers at the Khmeimim Air Base “lost contact” with the aircraft on Wednesday evening, during the attack of Israeli F-16 fighters on Latakia, said the MOD.

    Russian radars also registered the launch of missiles from a French frigate in the Mediterranean on the evening of September 17.

    A search and rescue mission is underway.[/i]

    https://www.rt.com/news/438673-russian-il20-disappears-radars/

    • Borncynical

      Coincidentally (?) just coinciding with seemingly constructive Russia/Turkey ‘peace’ talks on Syria.
      Could be a game changer in the region.

    • N_

      Shit!!

      I think RT’s reference to “Wednesday” is a mistake and they mean the Russian jet disappeared on Monday, a few hours ago.

      A Russian military Il-20 aircraft with 14 service members on board went off the radars during an attack by four Israeli jets on Syria’s Latakia province, the Russian Defense Ministry said (…) The attack on Latakia came just hours after Russia and Turkey negotiated a partial demilitarization of the Idlib province, which is the last remaining stronghold of anti-government militants

    • IrishU

      Any independent verification that the French frigate launched missiles either into Syrian terrirtory or against the Russian plane? For the avoidance of doubt a report by RT does not consititute independent verification.

      • Jude D

        For the avoidance of doubt, do inform us what does constitute “indpendent verification” for Neocon propagandists like yourself: The BBC – which treated the absurd fairytale of Saddam’s “WMD” as established fact? The New York Times , which did likewise? The Times? Richard Perle? The ghost of Christopher Hitchens? By the way does ‘Irish U’ stand for ‘Irish Unionist’? Just guessing.

    • Tom Welsh

      A deliberate and cynical plan by Israel to fool Syrian defences to shoot down the Russian aircraft. Of course that would have been impossible if the world did not allow Israel to launch unlimited attacks on Syria, an independent sovereign state, directly contrary to international law, the UN Charter, and the Nuremberg Principles (according to which aggressive war is the supreme international crime).

      There can be no excuse for Israel’s brutal and inhuman violence. The logical Russian response is to tell Israel (and everyone else) that any military aircraft approaching Russian or Syrian aircraft will simply be destroyed.

1 2 3 4 5 6 12

Comments are closed.