The Stench of Systemic Corruption

By Rich Kozlovich

Recently there was an article by Andrew Orlowski reporting that that "Secret 28 Who Made BBC Green Will Not Be Named" where he openly states that a "judge has partisan views on climate change" as part of the reason for their decision to not reveal information under the Freedom of Information Act about decisions made by a British public entity…..the British Broadcasting Corporation. 

First I would like to lay some foundation for this article.   The BBC has openly decided to support global warming initiatives and to attempt to influence decision makers to support it also.  Why?  Apparently the BBC invited 28 people who were touted to be “scientific experts” to a seminar about climate change and convince them to take “warmist positions” in their reporting eschewing impartiality. 

A blogger by the name of  “Tony Newberry had asked for the attendance list in a freedom-of information request to the BBC some 18 months after the seminar took place in early 2006.  He had been struck by a disparity between the BBC Trust’s description of the event – “a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts” – and subsequent accounts of the confab, which suggested the 28 invitees included a number of environmental activists and ideologues.  Newberry wanted to know how many scientists were there, and what they said that had been so convincing.”

They wouldn’t give up that information up so he sued under their FOIA.  He lost and that list will now remain secret!  This ruling was expected, but this decision brings about some concerns and raises questions that need to be answered by someone. 

What happens when the media becomes so corrupt that the corruption is obvious to any casual observer?  What happens when a media outlet is so protected that it can be oblivious to criticism?  What happens when the judiciary becomes equally bad and is impervious to dissent?  What happens when the scientific community is so enamored with grant money that they have abandoned any pretext at scientific integrity?   What happens when the legislative branches are so corrupted that they are only concerned about appeasing those who will keep them in power that they abandon all sense of justice?  What happens when they are all so corrupted with a green philosophy that they create an iron ring of invincibility surrounding the policies that promote green policies? Policies that are shown to be blatantly unscientific, and in so many cases fraudulent! Fraudulent and incredibly detrimental to humanities well being!  This is obviously true regarding global warming and a host of other positions, including the known fraudulent studies on Genetically Modified Organisms, and fraudulent endocrine disruption studies regarding pesticides that influenced legislation.  Legislation that is still on the books!   

This pattern has played out for decades except that now their impact on public policy is so immense that it has become profoundly important that society knows who it is that is molding their thinking; the thinking of those in power; and why.  Only in this case the BBC isn’t a private corporation that will rise or fall on what they write and what they promote.    The BBC is, strictly speaking, paid for with British tax dollars and, at least in theory, is owned by the British public.  A public to whom they will not disclose what goes on in closed door discussions regarding what they will promote as public policy. 

If they were a privately owned company I would agree with the decision.  However, it isn’t a private company, and I don’t agree with the decision.   It is even clearer that the judiciary on both sides of the Atlantic have become as philosophically corrupt as the Soviet and Nazi show trial judges.  I don’t know how it works in Britain, but here we can at least fire the morons.  Unless they are the morons and political hacks that get themselves appointed to the federal bench for life.  It is time for term limits. 

It isn’t as if there is no foundational information to show that virtually everything the green movement promotes turns out disastrously for humanity, starting with their efforts to completely ban DDT.   They are known by their policies and the outcome of their policies is known.  Dystopia follows the green movement like Sancho Panza followed Don Quixote, a mad man.  Why would any sane person support them? 

The final question that really needs to be answered is this.  When humanity suffers as a result of the imposition of these green views and positions; who will answer?