Articles Tagged "Rupert Wyndham"

I have now skim read the adjudication of the Editorial Standards Committee. A careful reading is not warranted. It is plain that the adjudication is no more than a rehash of the Stage 2 response which, itself, was no more than a tissue of distortion, lies and equivocation. Two substantive points are worth making, however:

• It has been abundantly clear throughout this process that outcomes for me and for other complainants would be pre-ordained and predictable.
• With a constant succession of delays and excuses therefor, it has taken your Committee a year and a half to deliver its demonstrably partial and flawed response. This time lag the Committee has acknowledged, and has offered an apology. The apology is not accepted. In itself, however, what these evasions underscore is the intellectual bankruptcy of the Corporation’s position and its essentially mendacious approach to dealing with complaints of prejudice - not, one might add, simply in relation to the global warming controversy. The bedrock on which the BBC has been relying has rested on the proposition that “the science was settled” by a consensus of scientific opinion, fortified in its case by reference to the fraudulent assertion that a seminar of climate experts convened by it on 26 January 2006, had so declared.

Download PDF file to read FULL letter from Rupert Wyndham to the BBC

Lord Rees
President
The Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AG.

Dear Lord Rees

Science is organized scepticism and the consensus must shift in light of the evidence." Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society (May 28, 2010)

To be sure, what an inspirational message – the more so in the light of another from your manifestly objective predecessor (Oh yes, indeed!) that we should “Respect the facts.” Perhaps you, he or The Royal Society collectively would care to educate and enlighten “crackpots” by defining which facts, or should one perhaps say “Whose facts?”

In the meantime, let us move on. You have been busy of late, and another quotation follows, albeit taken from the verbiage surrounding this letter’s opening statement. You state:

“The Society has always encouraged debate particularly through our discussion meetings and our journals.” [My emphasis]

That is a lie. Far from encouraging debate, the RS has proactively done everything within its power to suppress it. For this uncompromising accusation, you are invited to revisit enclosed correspondence from 2007 (below). Let me remind you that, on 31 July 2007, the Society, overnight and without warning, closed down its website forum – not simply the so-called climate change string but in entirety. Why? Because, after a few exchanges, it could not countenance well sourced contra-contributions – as it happens, mostly from me. Specific to this episode, your attention is directed to my letter of 1 August 2007 - for ease of reference enclosed herewith.

Click source to read FULL letter from Rupert Wyndham

Dear Archbishop Nichols

As the New Year breaks, from a vantage point South of the Equator, I look upon temperature maps North of the Tropic of Cancer, and behold a seemingly unbroken ocean of blue. From the Rockies to the Pamirs and on to Fuji-san, the hemisphere is in the grip of ice and snow. Indeed, as I write, in China so abundant is the precipitation that it is seen perhaps as the solution to prevailing widespread drought. Moreover, since your archbishopric is likewise in the thick of it, you will be dismayed to learn that any likelihood of significant respite throughout January and February is slender. And do not be tempted to draw comfort from anything predicted by the Met Office; certainly, my own sources are far more reliable and can be demonstrated to be so. Besides, its luminaries attribute freezing to global warming! Just crooks or stark barking mad?

Of course, contrasts between reality and expectations informed by pronouncements from the Hadley Centre are no longer startling, simply risibly predictable. To those who come to “Climate Change” with open eyes (not to mention open minds), it merely constitutes a trend - as unmistakeable as tracks in the snow, the cupidity and mendacity of politicians, the poltroonery of establishment scientists and their journalistic lapdogs or the catastrophist phantasmagoria of anthropogenic global warming pseudo-environmentalists. Furthermore, the perception is strengthened to the point of absolute confirmation by the predictions of dissenting mavericks. These renegades, unashamed in the face of understandable vexation and vilification from practitioners of orthodox purity, obdurately persist in pursuing rigorous, replicable science. This, naturally, is an outrage, which one would not hesitate to condemn save for one small but inconvenient circumstance. They make a furtive and disreputable virtue of repeatedly being right!

Download PDF file to read Open letter to Archbishop Vincent Nichols by Rupert Wyndham

Dear Archbishop Nichols

Last Friday the airwaves hummed to the news that you, together with your counterparts from other “faith communities” in the country, had collectively lobbied Ed Miliband MP in connection with the forthcoming conference in Copenhagen dedicated to so-called climate change. The BBC for one reported that you had declared it to be “a moral issue”. I agree. So much so, in fact, that I venture to proffer the suggestion that the ethical underpinning of the cause to which you have now committed the weight of your office warrants the closest possible scrutiny.

But where to begin? Well, as the beauteous and benign white Witch of the North said to Dorothy, “It’s usually best to start at the beginning”. Good advice! So then, what are we being asked to believe by the proselytisers of anthropogenic global warming, curiously morphed to “climate change”- any idea why? No? Just ask and I’ll deliver chapter and verse from none other than the august Tyndall Centre no less (en passant, Working Paper No. 58). But, anyway, in the sort of transcendental terminology favoured by you and others of a theocratic persuasion, we are being asked to accept that, within the atmosphere, a trace carbon compound, but one which happens also to have been ordained by God to be the fundamental building block of life itself, nevertheless contains within it the seeds of Armageddon.

Dear Mr. Tait

Re: Earth: The Climate Wars

This letter is written further to that sent by Mr. Bruce Vander on 2 October, and signed by Mr. Fadda, which accompanied briefing papers to be submitted to the Trustees on 5 November. In one way or another, the package from Mr. Vander extends to over fifty pages. This response is also likely to be long, for which I make no apology.

Allow me to begin it with some general observations. The BBC’s Complaints Procedure is tortuous and extended. There can be little doubt that this is precisely what it is intended to be. Make it hard for license fee payers to complain, and they probably won’t is the underlying stratagem - opaque and collusive, but probably quite effective at the morally degenerate level of expediency. There is, however, a potentially intractable problem, is there not, with employing deviously protracted tactics? It is that the process may become overtaken by events which are to the cause - well, unhelpful, shall we say? Precisely that has occurred on this occasion in spectacular fashion - twice! But of that, more in due course.

The following letter has been sent to Rupert Wyndham from the BBC regarding Systemic BBC bias and global warming and other points made by Rupert to the BBC, we have included the latest communication below.

Dear Mr Wyndham,

I am writing to update you on the progress of your appeal regarding Earth: The Climate Wars.

The editorial investigation is taking longer than expected and so I regret to say that this appeal will not be ready in time to be included with the appeals heard at the Editorial Standards Committee meeting on 30 September.

The next ESC meeting is on 5 November, and your appeal will be heard then.

I apologise for this additional delay.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Fadda
Editorial Assistant, BBC Trust Unit

Dear Lord Rees

To date at least, a grim summer from coast to coast across the North American continent has had its echo as well on this side of the Atlantic. Albeit hedged about with implausible and self-serving qualifications (“Heat gives rise to cold”, “Humans are psychologically not equipped to apprehend long term hazards” - profundities of that kind), in the last some days, a ten year stasis and cooling in world temperatures in the face of rising CO2 concentrations has finally been conceded by that sink of scientific chicanery and malpractice, Realclimate.com.

An equally inept and disreputable UK Met Office remains in stubborn but increasingly risible denial. Although it was foreseen by others (for example, unlike the politically inspired Nature, the scientifically rigorous journal, Energy & Environment) this trend, of course, was totally missed by the GCMs so beloved of global warming propagandists. In short, this seems an opportune moment for a brief review of what the RS persists in maintaining is authoritative climate change science. A few examples follow:

Please download PDF file to read FULL copy letter

This is the second letter from Rupert Wyndham to the BBC, the first was Re: Systemic BBC bias and global warming. We have included a NewsBuster YouTube on the next section as it's part of the letter and topic.

“11 of the past 12 years are the hottest on record. So that is an indication that they have risen….”

Make such claims if you wish, but not, if you please, as if they were papal pronouncements made ex cathedra! Garwood’s claim is totally absurd. Does he suppose that we can’t feel temperatures, as he describes them, through our skins? And, when I say “we”, I mean people at large right across the globe. How does he suppose the cognitive dissonance arises between what the public are told and what they experience on a day to day basis? Or, is the BBC unaware that repeated opinion polls conducted on both sides of the Atlantic have been showing a consistently expanding tendency towards disbelief in global warming propaganda?

The following letter to the BBC has come to us for display...

Within the last few days I’ve received three letters from you - well, specifically from your colleague, Mr. Vander, to be pedantic about it. Two are dated 27 March, of which one is referenced 15439897, and relates to the Non-reporting of International Conference on Climate Change, March 2008. The other is not referenced, but relates to a selection of topics, including general bias. The third (Ref: 16124658) is dated 31 May but, self-evidently, is meant to read 31 March. I must say, with you people, it really is either feast or famine, is it not? Months pass with nothing except the occasional bleat for more time; après ça le déluge! Oh well, better that, I suppose, than the more usual echoing silence.

Please download the PDF file to read FULL letter to the BBC