At some point, someone will say "praise the Lord for celebrity criminals, it's the only way the mainstream media can be assed to report crime and hold the legal system's failures to account!"
But even that will be a farce, when you look at how the media revered Sir Jimmy Saville's libel lawyers so much he was never exposed during his lifetime. According to "due process of the law", Saville is "innocent until proved proved guilty while being given the chance to defend himself", and since that is no longer possible, he is "in the eyes of the law" innocent. All because the newspapers were either in awe of him for being a celebrity, or afraid of his lawyers. Literally the same happened with Hitler in the 1930s, when the vast majority of the media backed peace at any price, applauding Chamberlain's three trips to get Hitler's "peace pledge" autograph in 1938, even after the Mein Kampf and Nuremberg Laws had exposed him as a malicious war mongering racist. You can't say the mainstream media is innocent or well-meaning! It would pander to the devil incarnate to boost readers/viewers!
Take another example. Around 2008, when the CO2 climate scare mongering began, based on Arrhenius's greenhouse deception, a couple of climate researchers at NASA resigned in protest because there's a massive flaw in the theory, being covered up to this day.
If you plot CO2 rise and temperature rise over say the past century, there's a general correlation, but there's a huge problem. The amount of CO2 (now 416 parts per million of air) is only 4% of what is needed to account for the rise in temperature if CO2 is purely responsible!
So where's the 96% of the temperature rise coming from? It turned out that all of the IPCC's "alternative models" of climate change attributed that 96% to water vapour, H2O. If you boil your kettle, you get steam, and steam (water vapour) is a good wide-band absorber of infra-red. The problem is, that can't be true. The NASA scientist (I quote him in papers on vixra, over a decade ago) grasped that if there was such "positive feedback" from water vapour, we wouldn't be here because the earth's oceans would have ensured a runaway greenhouse effect, making Earth another Venus.
The reality, of course, is that as soon as the atmosphere is saturated, clouds condense, increasing the albedo. So a hotter earth will simply have more cloud cover, reflecting away more solar radiation and offsetting the effect of extra CO2.
What's shocking here is what the mainstream media did with this. They ignored the whole thing unless they have a vested interest in promoting mainstream propaganda, and if they were critical, they tried to avoid looking at the mechanism and instead tried to built a case by quoting "experts". James Delingpole at the Daily Telegraph wrote a huge number of posts attacking climate research, but ignored the facts, preferring to leak the emails about peer review bias from the University of East Anglia, or former New Scientist editor Nigel Calder's graph correlating temperature rise to cosmic ray solar activity measurements.
(This relates to the cloud formation: cosmic radiation hitting the clean upper atmosphere causes ionization of air, triggering the condensation of saturated air into cloud droplets just as occurs in the Wilson cloud chamber of physics, so instead of having water vapour absorbing the sun's infra-red, you get a cirrus cloud that reflects most sunlight back into space, cooling the earth. But this mechanism was never front page headlines, submerged by endless nonsense.)
So, the media is a really bad thing. If you go into it, journalism began with people simply keeping journals like diaries or letters, that could be passed around to distribute written news. Then the printing presses corrupted it, and the hunt was on for celebrity "news". The most exciting headlines sold the most, so boring stuff was gradually censored out. But the problem is, the devil is in the detail, and the detail is boring.
Sorry half your comment was hidden! Just got your CO2 bits! Tell me honestly, which mainstream media, particularly newspapers, do you read? We are allowed opinions too you know, and we are independent and rigorously regulated and monitored .... private money pays us, we are not state-owned and run ... that's where the real control lies ...
I have to say, the mainstream media wasn't in awe of Savile, for ten years i hunted him on behalf of a number of British newspapers and the problem was the establishment view of him, not ours ... and, yes, we are obsessed by celebrity but for one reason - the general public are! MSM are multi-facetted...
I won't link to my own papers about this because it gets misinterpreted as "self promotion", but another critic is NASA Dr Roy Spencer who developed the microwave sensor satellite tools to measure the temperature rise, see his site: https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ for the latest data graph, showing a roughly linear 0.69 C temperature rise between 1979-2023. He writes:
"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. ... The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it."
This is costing a huge amount of taxpayers cash, yet there is no research into alternatives, and the media is not pushing for better science, but for accepting existing half-baked models! It's precisely the same with nuclear deterrence, where the media went along with Russian biased disarmament activists getting rid of Western W79 tactical nuclear weapons to allow Putin to invade countries, or superstring theory, where superstring must be the right way to unify the fundamental forces because it's the only theory that gets funding...
I wrote some articles that were published from 1994-2003 in Electronics World and also contributed some news stories to papers (one got published in the Mail on Sunday 1995), but I'm not doing that now. When I finally did get anything published after a lot of effort, it was simply ignored. There is too much fashion consensus!
i just wondered why you despise people who are working journalists so much? We are just writers who make a living .... i know there are rogues but they always sifted out ultimately .... i also know the good we do, exposing cant and pomposity, criminals and liars ... i know the guiding principle is truth and I am proud of my job .... i love celebrity writing but i have also worked in Northern Ireland, brought down powerful liars and politicians, been a travel writer, music critic and broadcaster ... i have edited daily and weekly newspapers - and have sacked conmen and idiots i've found in my ranks ... i am not a rarity either!
"Mainstream media is the crack in society where the light gets in, without it there would be a black, deafeningly silent, abyss."
There is such a silent abyss on nearly every scandal! The mainstream media is obsessed with celebrity, even to the point of putting "news" of allegations of celebrity crime before the ordinary folk. According to the victims commissioner, "Only 5% of rapes that were given an outcome by the police in the year ending December 2021". (Source: https://victimscommissioner.org.uk/news/the-distressing-truth-is-that-if-you-are-raped-in-britain-today-your-chances-of-seeing-justice-are-slim/#:~:text=Only%205%25%20of%20rapes%20that,you%20will%20get%20to%20trial. )
At some point, someone will say "praise the Lord for celebrity criminals, it's the only way the mainstream media can be assed to report crime and hold the legal system's failures to account!"
But even that will be a farce, when you look at how the media revered Sir Jimmy Saville's libel lawyers so much he was never exposed during his lifetime. According to "due process of the law", Saville is "innocent until proved proved guilty while being given the chance to defend himself", and since that is no longer possible, he is "in the eyes of the law" innocent. All because the newspapers were either in awe of him for being a celebrity, or afraid of his lawyers. Literally the same happened with Hitler in the 1930s, when the vast majority of the media backed peace at any price, applauding Chamberlain's three trips to get Hitler's "peace pledge" autograph in 1938, even after the Mein Kampf and Nuremberg Laws had exposed him as a malicious war mongering racist. You can't say the mainstream media is innocent or well-meaning! It would pander to the devil incarnate to boost readers/viewers!
Take another example. Around 2008, when the CO2 climate scare mongering began, based on Arrhenius's greenhouse deception, a couple of climate researchers at NASA resigned in protest because there's a massive flaw in the theory, being covered up to this day.
If you plot CO2 rise and temperature rise over say the past century, there's a general correlation, but there's a huge problem. The amount of CO2 (now 416 parts per million of air) is only 4% of what is needed to account for the rise in temperature if CO2 is purely responsible!
So where's the 96% of the temperature rise coming from? It turned out that all of the IPCC's "alternative models" of climate change attributed that 96% to water vapour, H2O. If you boil your kettle, you get steam, and steam (water vapour) is a good wide-band absorber of infra-red. The problem is, that can't be true. The NASA scientist (I quote him in papers on vixra, over a decade ago) grasped that if there was such "positive feedback" from water vapour, we wouldn't be here because the earth's oceans would have ensured a runaway greenhouse effect, making Earth another Venus.
The reality, of course, is that as soon as the atmosphere is saturated, clouds condense, increasing the albedo. So a hotter earth will simply have more cloud cover, reflecting away more solar radiation and offsetting the effect of extra CO2.
What's shocking here is what the mainstream media did with this. They ignored the whole thing unless they have a vested interest in promoting mainstream propaganda, and if they were critical, they tried to avoid looking at the mechanism and instead tried to built a case by quoting "experts". James Delingpole at the Daily Telegraph wrote a huge number of posts attacking climate research, but ignored the facts, preferring to leak the emails about peer review bias from the University of East Anglia, or former New Scientist editor Nigel Calder's graph correlating temperature rise to cosmic ray solar activity measurements.
(This relates to the cloud formation: cosmic radiation hitting the clean upper atmosphere causes ionization of air, triggering the condensation of saturated air into cloud droplets just as occurs in the Wilson cloud chamber of physics, so instead of having water vapour absorbing the sun's infra-red, you get a cirrus cloud that reflects most sunlight back into space, cooling the earth. But this mechanism was never front page headlines, submerged by endless nonsense.)
So, the media is a really bad thing. If you go into it, journalism began with people simply keeping journals like diaries or letters, that could be passed around to distribute written news. Then the printing presses corrupted it, and the hunt was on for celebrity "news". The most exciting headlines sold the most, so boring stuff was gradually censored out. But the problem is, the devil is in the detail, and the detail is boring.
Sorry half your comment was hidden! Just got your CO2 bits! Tell me honestly, which mainstream media, particularly newspapers, do you read? We are allowed opinions too you know, and we are independent and rigorously regulated and monitored .... private money pays us, we are not state-owned and run ... that's where the real control lies ...
I have to say, the mainstream media wasn't in awe of Savile, for ten years i hunted him on behalf of a number of British newspapers and the problem was the establishment view of him, not ours ... and, yes, we are obsessed by celebrity but for one reason - the general public are! MSM are multi-facetted...
I won't link to my own papers about this because it gets misinterpreted as "self promotion", but another critic is NASA Dr Roy Spencer who developed the microwave sensor satellite tools to measure the temperature rise, see his site: https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ for the latest data graph, showing a roughly linear 0.69 C temperature rise between 1979-2023. He writes:
"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. ... The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it."
- https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
This is costing a huge amount of taxpayers cash, yet there is no research into alternatives, and the media is not pushing for better science, but for accepting existing half-baked models! It's precisely the same with nuclear deterrence, where the media went along with Russian biased disarmament activists getting rid of Western W79 tactical nuclear weapons to allow Putin to invade countries, or superstring theory, where superstring must be the right way to unify the fundamental forces because it's the only theory that gets funding...
You work within journalism?
I wrote some articles that were published from 1994-2003 in Electronics World and also contributed some news stories to papers (one got published in the Mail on Sunday 1995), but I'm not doing that now. When I finally did get anything published after a lot of effort, it was simply ignored. There is too much fashion consensus!
i just wondered why you despise people who are working journalists so much? We are just writers who make a living .... i know there are rogues but they always sifted out ultimately .... i also know the good we do, exposing cant and pomposity, criminals and liars ... i know the guiding principle is truth and I am proud of my job .... i love celebrity writing but i have also worked in Northern Ireland, brought down powerful liars and politicians, been a travel writer, music critic and broadcaster ... i have edited daily and weekly newspapers - and have sacked conmen and idiots i've found in my ranks ... i am not a rarity either!
Your articles are very well argued. No I don't despise journalists, but they have to cater to what people buy, which is sometimes a disaster!