Kelvin Mckenzie and the Murdoch press pretending to support ordinary people against the establishment is a joke

Kelvin McKenzie had a very amusing piece on the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ website. While I have to admire his chutzpah in putting it to such a hostile audience his claims about Murdoch and his media empire are as much hot air as usual.

He claims

‘In the two decades he[Murdoch] has owned the channel [Sky], not one editor or journalist has suggested that he has interfered or even made suggestions about news coverage.’

Why would he need to when he can pick people like you, whose political views are his own exactly like his own as editors? (i.e spread hatred of immigrants, the unemployed and foreigners, plus talking up whichever of the two main parties he has a deal on further media deregulation and targeting the one he’s not currently made a deal with)

He then launches into an advert for Sky TV.

‘Sky is the giant of television. Sure it has the football but it has so much more. Even a cultural philistine like me finds myself drawn to Sky Arts, National Geographic and the History Channel. All have unexpected gems that you cannot find anywhere else.’

It’s hard to understand why the Guardian is giving Sky free advertising space here.

Kelvin then starts praising Murdoch’s supposed services to reducing unemployment in the UK.

‘Thank God for the Rupert Murdochs of this world. I wish there were hundreds more in our country. Unemployment would be wiped out at a stroke.’

Not sure what his evidence for that is. Murdoch backed Thatcher from the start. In opposition the Conservatives put out an election poster showing a dole queue with the words ‘Britain isn’t working’. At that point unemployment was over 2 million. By three years into Thatcher’s first term in office (helped there by the support of Murdoch and his Sun newspaper) unemployment was over 3 million. That doesn’t seem like a great job if you’re judging by results.

 If everyone was like Murdoch we’d certainly have no tax base at all due to his companies managing to pay almost nothing in tax on their vast profits and would go bankrupt like Greece.

His companies used tax avoidance to pay no net taxes at all in the UK in the 1990s  (no-one found this out till 1999). News Corporation recently paid $77mn in taxes to one Australian regional government after claiming for 7 years that it hadn’t been avoiding taxes.

I’ll grant that Murdoch’s firms do certainly provide employment for some dodgy ‘private investigators’ like Glenn Mulcaire, who has suddenly done a massive u-turn on his belief that no-one has any right to privacy, now that it affects him, asking reporters to respect his family’s privacy

McKenzie has more praise for Rupert

‘Why has Rupert a monopoly? Simple: nobody else had the guts, the nerve or the stunning management skill to take on the establishment.’

Allying himself with the leaders of the two main political parties alternately and getting his papers to tell people to vote for the one he currently has a deal on deregulation of media ownership with is “taking on the establishment”.

David Cameron and his other Bullingdon Club boys aren’t the establishment? Few people have been as close to "the establishment" as Rupert Murdoch and Kelvin McKenzie.

There’s also his media empire’s use of phone hacking and unusually long ranged mikes to target anyone who goes up against them.

Finally Kelvin says

‘Sky is not Fox News and I have my doubts that in leftwing, socialist, clapped-out Britain, the latter would work commercially or audiencewise.’

It wouldn’t work because it’s blatant propaganda and has had shows by people like Glenn Beck claiming Obama is racist against white people; and has edited out the applause from News reports on his speeches.

That’s apart from the fact that the last time the UK had a government that could be described as socialist was the Atlee government in 1945-1950.

I wonder what Kelvin might have said about a left wing or even vaguely liberal person saying Britain is “clapped out”. I’m guessing the phrase “Brit bashing” would be involved.

There is no public interest involved in publishing gossip about sex – only money grubbing and distracting from real issues

Whatever Fred Goodwin's faults, the whole world does not have a right to hear every detail of his private life, or anyone else's

I'm not an admirer of the job Fred Goodwin did as head of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), but who he had an affair with is none of anyone's business except maybe his wife.

There's a ludicrous idea in Britain, promoted by tabloid hacks who profit from it, that if someone is famous, a politician, or was in a high paid job the entire world has the moral right to know about every detail of their private lives. They don't. There's no public interest involved, because 'public interest' does not mean 'anything some of the public are interested in knowing - including gossip about peoples' private lives', it means something that affects the public's interests - i.e which would harm them if they don't know it and/or benefit them if they did.

All this coverage of peoples' sex lives is just a distraction from the real issues - and anyone who thinks the banking crisis was just down to who was running the banks at the time and their personal failings simply doesn't understand the problem.

The problem is deregulation, which results in any executive of a company that doesn't only look to how they can maximise profits this quarter (whatever the long term risks or losses) being replaced by someone who will - or being put out of business, or being taken over by a company that will.

Unless the banks and other firms are regulated properly – which will also require closing down the tax havens that allow enough secrecy to make regulation impossible - this will happen again and again and again.

The money grubbers like Rupert Murdoch, former Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie and the bin raking ‘private detectives’ the Murdoch empire hire, like Glenn Mulcaire, pretend that they are upholding moral values, serving the public interest and exposing hypocrisy. No-one could be greater hypocrites than they are, as they peddle gossip to make money, distracting attention from real issues such as how much tax (if any) billionaires, newspaper editors like Kelvin Mackenzie and big firms like News International pay in the UK.

Kelvin Mackenzie

In fact we know Murdoch’s News International used (legal) tax avoidance to avoid paying any net tax whatsoever in the UK between 1989 and 1999.

We also know that in addition to being involved in buying information obtained by illegal illegal phone hacking, Murdoch’s papers have also paid police for information on peoples’ private lives. Rebekah Wade (now Brooks) slipped up in 2003 by admitting as (then) editor of the Sun that the paper paid police for information on celebrities which it then published. Brooks is now Chief Executive of News International (the UK subsidiary of Murdoch's News Corp).

We also know MacKenzie and the Sun have often printed outright lies based on rumours, such as their stories about Elton John having had sex with underage rent boys and removing the voice boxes of his guard dogs. John Pilger wrote of one headline in The Sun under Mackenzie referring to Australian aborigines as ‘The Abos – brutal and dangerous’.

In fact MacKenzie has sunk so low so many times in his hate-mongering, lies and gossip about others that he really has no moral high ground from which to criticise other people.

There are some real private investigators who investigate the serious issues by looking at the business and political frauds committed by some of the most powerful people, political parties, governments, criminals and companies. These are people who risk vilification and sometimes death to give people the truth – people like John Pilger, Greg Palast, Robert Fisk, Peter Maass, the late Veronica Guerin and Shane Bauer (currently being held as a highly unlikely ‘US spy’ by Iran’s government.) Kelvin Mackenzie and his associates are a joke compared to them, a sad travesty of what real investigative journalists and editors should be.

Some of the other things you will never see raised in most tabloids are the vast rip-off of taxpayers and the NHS through PFI and PPP contracts, which make taxpayers pay more for cut services; the double subsidy they’re paying to privatised rail companies (above inflation fare rises plus government subsidy), the subsidy to the nuclear industry and the subsidies to arms manufacturer British Aerospace; and tax havens used to avoid paying income and corporation tax, pushing up taxes for the majority.

These are all cases of the majority subsidising the very richest on a scale that makes the expenses scandal look like a baby pissing into the Atlantic. Instead the tabloids will tell you that your money is being “stolen” by the unemployed, even though there have never been enough jobs for everyone in booms or recessions, that “immigrants” are “stealing” it (even though many are fleeing death by starvation, lack of medical care or being tortured or shot – and benefits paid to them are well below the amount paid to citizens) , or that trade unions are. Then they’ll tell you who shagged who (or who some false rumour says shagged who) – and sadly many people are taken for mugs, while Murdoch and friends play them for every penny they’ve got.

I remember as a teenager in 1986 seeing a Sun front page with the headline ‘Freddie Starr ate my hamster’. Not long afterwards Reagan bombed Tripoli in Libya, with Prime Minister Thatcher giving the planes permission to refuel in Britain without even informing parliament never mind having a vote on it. The raid killed a small girl among others. There was a tiny column on this in The Sun that day with a picture of a plane on one side of the page covering this story in two sentences. That sums up the methods of Kelvin Mackenzie and those like him – blind people with bullshit to distract them from the real issues.

Sun editor's admission that she paid police for stories may show why police are covering up for the News of the World - and determined to get Sheridan

Police took money from the Murdoch press for information – which may be why they’re covering up phone hacking - and so determined to get Sheridan, whose phone they knew had been hacked, convicted of perjury

It turns out that in 2003 Rebekah Wade, then editor of the Sun, admitted to a parliamentary select committee that the Sun had paid police officers for information on people for newspaper stories (1). If that happens at the Sun, what are the chances of it not happening at the News of the World – another brand in the Murdoch cupboard of scratchy toilet paper? What are the chances that it didn’t continue until at least the current phone hacking scandal?

This puts a new light on the police’s unwillingness to investigate phone hacking at the News of the World much;  and their refusal to tell people they and their numbers were listed in the notebook of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire ( a convicted phone hacker, paid by the News of the World). If police officers have taken money for information from the Murdoch press, they won’t shop them for fear of losing their own jobs, possibly being convicted themselves – and at the least losing their additional income from feeding the tabloids in future (2).

It also put’s a new light on their determination to convict Tommy Sheridan, one of the victims of News of the World phone hacking.

Time magazine reports that in 2003 she (Rebekah) told the parliamentary media and culture committee that “We have paid the police for information in the past.”  (3) Rebekah (now Brooks) is now Chief Executive of News International, a subsidiary of Murdoch’s News Corporation. News International owns both the Sun and the News of the World.

MPs apparently backed off from demanding Wade (now Brooks after a divorce) be called before a parliamentary select committee again more recently, for fear the Murdoch press would target their own personal lives (4).

Since Wade’s earlier admission shows the police are hiding corruption in their own ranks and collusion with illegal acts by tabloid newspapers, it’s time MPs got some balls and stopped caving in to Murdoch.

The Guardian also reported in 2010 that 'the officer in charge of the inquiry [into phone hacking], assistant commissioner Andy Hayman, subsequently left the police to work for News International as a columnist.' , which could very easily be the paper rewarding him for being so lax in his investigation of it.(5)

(1) = Guardian 12 Mar 2001 ‘Sun editor admits paying police officers for stories’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/mar/12/sun.pressandpublishing

(2) = See sources linked for this previous post, http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2011/01/glaring-contrast-between-police.html

(3) = Time magazine 27 Jan 2011 ‘Did Police Ignore Evidence in Britain's Phone-Hacking Scandal?’, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2044608-2,00.html

(4) = guardian.co.uk 10 sep 2010 ‘MPs backed down from calling Rebekah Brooks to Commons’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/10/mps-backed-down-rebekah-brooks

(5) guardian.co.uk 04 Apr 2010 'Police 'ignored News of the World phone hacking evidence', http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/04/police-ignored-news-world-evidence

The glaring contrast between police investigations of Sheridan for perjury and the Murdoch press for phone hacking

The three year jail sentence given to Tommy Sheridan for perjury is considerably longer than many offenders get for serious violent assaults. Irrespective of whether you believe Sheridan is guilty or not, this underlines the fact that this trial has a large political element, with the establishment parties, the police and the Murdoch media empire closing ranks to punish those who resist them.

When police suspected Sheridan of perjury in a case against the News of the World they made a surpise raid on his house with thirty officers, interrogated his wife and accused her of theft of airline miniature drinks (her employer British Airways later exonerating here) and of using “terrorist techniques” when she said her lawyer had advised her not to answer their questions (1) – (2).

When the News of the World is suspected of illegally hacking thousands of peoples’ phones, including Tommy Sheridan’s, the police write the newspaper polite letters asking them if they have any evidence they would like to provide them with, hide evidence of whose phones were hacked from victims and from the Crown Prosecution Service; and say they’ve no legal obligation to investigate or charge all those involved (3) – (10).

They politely interview Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor (and until recently chief spin doctor to Prime Minister David Cameron) – and decide he has no charges to answer, despite former News of the World journalists saying he must have been aware of the systematic phone hacking carried out routinely by the paper’s journalists (3) – (10).

The News of the World says it has “impounded” the computer of one of their staff who is being investigated by police in order supposedly as part of an “internal inquiry” to look for any evidence he was breaking the law – in fact giving them the opportunity to delete emails and other evidence if they want to (11). Would Tommy Sheridan have been allowed to investigate his own computer, rather than the police doing it? Why is the News of the World trusted to investigate itself? The obvious answer is that it has political friends in high places - and the votes of those stupid or gullible enough to read and believe it for sale.

Rupert Murdoch’s papers have helped the winning parties into power in every election since 1979. It was Sky News and the Sun newspaper who set up Gordon Brown in the Mrs Duffy affair for example – though Duffy turned down the Sun’s attempt to bribe her to say she would vote Conservative. Sky and the Sun, like the News of the World, are owned by Rupert Murdoch’s companies (12) – (13).

This episode tells you all you need to know about how impartial the UK’s police and legal system are; little justice here – and lots of protecting those with power and influence.

(1) = Herald 22 Mar 2008 ‘'No charges' for Gail Sheridan over drink miniatures’, http://www.heraldscotland.com/no-charges-for-gail-sheridan-over-drink-miniatures-1.877085

(2) = Herald 03 Dec 2010 ‘Crown drops more Sheridan perjury charges’, http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/crime-courts/crown-drops-more-sheridan-perjury-charges-1.1072224 ; (scroll down to sub-heading near bottom of article)

(3) = guardian.co.uk 7 Jan 2011 ‘Met asks News of the World for new phone hacking evidence’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/07/met-news-of-the-world-phone-hacking

(4) = Independent 13 Jan 2011 ‘Scotland Yard fights to keep phone-hacking targets a secret’,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scotland-yard-fights-to-keep-phonehacking-targets-a-secret-2183196.html

(5) = guardian.co.uk 6 Jan 2011 ‘Tommy Sheridan to sue NoW and Met over phone hacking’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/06/tommy-sheridan-sues-phone-hacking

(6) = guardian.co.uk 07 Sep 2010 ‘John Prescott to sue Met over phone hacking details’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/17/john-prescott-sues-met-mulcaire

(7) = guardian.co.uk 02 Sep 2010 ‘MP demands judicial inquiry into News of the World phone-hacking claims’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/02/mp-news-of-the-world-inquiry ; ‘According the New York Times: "The officials didn't discuss certain evidence with senior prosecutors, including the notes suggesting the involvement of other reporters, according to a senior prosecutor on the case. The prosecutor was stunned to discover later that the police had not shared everything. 'I would have said we need to see how far this goes' and 'whether we have a serious problem of criminality on this news desk,' said the former prosecutor."....Referring to this allegation in his letter to No 10, Watson wrote: "The testimony given to the NYT is that the police did not share all the relevant information with the CPS. And that if they had done, the CPS would have reached different conclusions. These are clear grounds for a judicial inquiry. Please can you confirm your intention to recommend one."’

(8) = guardian.co.uk 05 Sep 2011 ‘MPs seek fresh investigation into News of the World phone hacking’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/05/mps-seek-phone-hacking-investigation

‘A note of a case conference between police and the CPS records that detectives recommended that "the appropriate strategy is to ringfence the case to minimise the risk of extraneous matters being included".

In a briefing note for ministers produced earlier this year, Dean Haydon, Yates's staff officer acknowledged: "Minimal work was done on the vast personal data where no criminal offences were apparent."…

The specific allegation that No 10 communications director Andy Coulson had known about phone hacking when he was editor of the News of the World were "recycled", a senior cabinet minister, Michael Gove, said.

He said the police decided "there was no case to answer" over claims public figures had their phones tapped while Coulson was editor.’

(9)  = New York Times 01 Sep 2010 ‘Tabloid Hack Attack on Royals, and Beyond’, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html

‘The litigation is beginning to expose just how far the hacking went, something that Scotland Yard did not do. In fact, an examination based on police records, court documents and interviews with investigators and reporters shows that Britain’s revered police agency failed to pursue leads suggesting that one of the country’s most powerful newspapers was routinely listening in on its citizens.

The police had seized files from Mulcaire’s home in 2006 that contained several thousand mobile phone numbers of potential hacking victims and 91 mobile phone PIN codes. Scotland Yard even had a recording of Mulcaire walking one journalist — who may have worked at yet another tabloid — step by step through the hacking of a soccer official’s voice mail, according to a copy of the tape. But Scotland Yard focused almost exclusively on the royals case, which culminated with the imprisonment of Mulcaire and Goodman. When police officials presented evidence to prosecutors, they didn’t discuss crucial clues that the two men may not have been alone in hacking the voice mail messages of story targets.

“There was simply no enthusiasm among Scotland Yard to go beyond the cases involving Mulcaire and Goodman,” said John Whittingdale, the chairman of a parliamentary committee that has twice investigated the phone hacking. “To start exposing widespread tawdry practices in that newsroom was a heavy stone that they didn’t want to try to lift.” Several investigators said in interviews that Scotland Yard was reluctant to conduct a wider inquiry in part because of its close relationship with News of the World.’

(10) = guardian.co.uk 01 Sep 2010 ‘Andy Coulson discussed phone hacking at News of the World, report claims’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/01/andy-coulson-phone-hacking-allegations

(11) = guardian.co.uk 03 jan 2011 ‘Internal inquiry launched into News of the World phone hacking’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/13/internal-inquiry-phone-hacking

(12) = BBC News 28 Apr 2010 ‘Gordon Brown 'bigoted woman' comment caught on tape’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649012.stm

(13) = Independent 30 Apr 2010 ‘How Mrs Duffy refused to dance to anti-Brown tune played by ‘The Sun’’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-mrs-duffy-refused-to-dance-to-antibrown-tune-played-by-lsquothe-sunrsquo-1958667.html

The petition by 31,000 scientists on climate change is an Exxon funded fraud ; Solar activity can't account for climate change

Antarctic ice is still melting rapidly in the West far more than it's growing in the East; cold winters or cooling of climate in some parts of the earth do not disprove overall global warming; and Peirs Corbyn is wildly wrong as often as he's right

Some people still seem to believe there’s a petition signed by “31,000 scientists” saying global warming is not man-made and not a problem ( it’s making the earth “lush” according to the petition). This is in fact the fraudulent Oregon Petition, first produced and disseminated by the dubious ‘Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’ and the George C. Marshall Institute, which is funded by Exxon-Mobil oil, in the late 90s (when it only had 17,000 dodgy signatories)  and then re-released every 5 years or so. The authors of the attached mock up of a research paper are members of the ‘Oregon Institute’ who don’t include any climate scientists at all. They’re variously vets or  physicians or chemists or electrical engineers – though given all the other things they’ve made up they might not even have those qualifications. They falsely claim that the ‘Research Paper’ was published in the journal of the US National Academy of Science, who disowned it and say they have nothing to do with it. Many of the supposed signatories, who include the unlikely ‘Dr. Michael J. Fox’ and ‘Dr. Geri Halliwell’, are not scientists at all; almost none are climate scientists (1) – (6).

Fredrick Seitz, founder of the George C. Marshall Institute - funded by Exxon oil

The man who established the George C Marshall Institute and began the petition was Fredrick Seitz, who was not a climate scientist but a physicist. Before he began producing propaganda against man-made climate change, funded by oil firm Exxon, he did lots of dodgy ‘research’ on how smoking cigarettes was supposedly harmless, funded by tobacco company P JReynolds.

Exxon is among the oil companies which continue to fund groups disseminating climate change denial propaganda (7) – (8). It has offered scientists $10,000 for each research paper they produce contradicting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that average annual global temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate and that this is more than 90% probability that most of this change is due to human activity (9) – (14). The IPCC, unlike the Oregon outfit, is composed of thousands of actual climate scientists doing peer reviewed research (15) - (16). An independent review of 928 scientific research papers found 75% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC’s assessment and none strongly disagree with it (not surprising as the IPCC mostly analyses and produces a summary of research at intervals of 5 to 10 years) (17).

NASA and others are also often quoted a supposed source that ice is growing in Antarctica. In fact every article on NASA’s website says the opposite, including that such claims are “misleading” and that “the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate.” They say sea ice in Eastern Antarctica is growing, but land ice in Western Antarctica is melting on a massively greater scale. (18) – (21).

The theory that solar activity or sunspots account for the majority of climate change is held by a tiny minority of scientists. It’s possible the tiny minority could be right and the vast majority wrong, but it’s not likely. Galileo may have been almost alone in saying the earth rotated around the sun, but at that point there were almost no scientists and it was mostly very religious non-scientists rubbishing his claims.

While there are non-human causes for part of climate change – and the earth did cyclically cool and heat long before the industrial revolution, the vast majority of research by solar scientists has found that solar activity and sun spots can account for at most a quarter of the amount of climate change we’ve seen since 1850, with the majority being man made (22) – (23).

Piers Corbyn has been wildly wrong as often as right in his weather forecasts

Weather Forecaster and physicist Piers Corbyn is much quoted for getting his predictions on the cold winters this and last year right, but his long term weather forecasting, based on solar activity, has been wrong as often as it’s been right. He’s predicted an extremely cold winter almost every year for the past decade and only got it right for two of those. His prediction of hurricane strength winds in the UK in the October and November 2007 was also completely wrong as were his predictions of very cold winters for most years of the last decade, including in 2008 . His overall record suggests that he's right that solar activity accounts for some weather and climate change, but that he's wrong in claiming it accounts for all of, or a majority of it. (24).

Nor are short term weather events evidence against overall climate change Nor is a colder climate in some countries and areas inconsistent with scientists’ predictions on overall global warming. For instance global warming could reduce the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles, slowing or even stopping the current ‘Gulf stream’ warm water convection current which keeps the UK warmer than Alaska. If the Gulf stream stops, then the UK ‘s climate could become as cold as Alaska even though the average annual temperature for the world as a whole has increased.

There is a lot of politics, misinformation and oil company money involved in climate change denial.

(1) = Guardian 19 Sep 2006 ‘The denial industry’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

(2) = The Royal Society March 2005 ‘A guide to facts and fiction about climate change’, http://royalsociety.org/General_WF.aspx?pageid=7318&terms=climate+change&fragment=&SearchType=&terms=climate%20change and http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/News_and_Issues/Science_Issues/Climate_change/climate_facts_and_fictions.pdf (see especially under subheading 2 from half-way down third page)

(3) = Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, http://www.oism.org/  - home page states ‘Several members of the Institute's staff are also well known for their work on the Petition Project, an undertaking that has obtained the signatures of more than 31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" and to concomitant proposals for world-wide energy taxation and rationing.’ Even if you believe their claims about their qualifications, not one even claims to be a climate scientist (saying they are vets, physicians, chemists, electrical engineers, etc).

(4) = National Academy of Sciences 20 Apr 1998 ‘STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION’,http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

(5) = Exxon-Mobil 2007 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments (company document published on http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36#src19  and at http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=download&d=4586 – lists $115,000 of donations to the George C. Marshall Institute in 2007 alone

(6) = Seattle Times 01 May 1998 ‘Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition’, http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308

(7) = Guardian.co.uk 01 jul 2009 ‘ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate sceptic groups, records show’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

(8) = Guardian.co.uk 10 Mar 2010 ‘US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace ; Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information'’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-donated-millions-climate-sceptics

(9) = Guardian 02 Feb 2007 ‘Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

(10) = CNN 05 Feb 2007 ‘Exxon linked to climate change pay out’, http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm

(11) = IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 : synthesis report , summary for policymakers ; ‘1. Observed changes in climate and their effects’,  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms1.html

(12) = As above ‘Causes of Change’ http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

(13) = Glossary of Terms used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report / Glossary of Synthesis Report, Likelihood, page 83,http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_appendix.pdf (‘very likely’ defined as greater than 90% probability).

(14) = CNN 29 Apr 2007 ‘Scientists: Humans 'very likely' cause global warming’, http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/index.html

(15) = IPCC flyer 2007 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-ar4/ipcc-flyer-low.pdf

(16) = See (2)

(17) = Science3 December 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686 ; ‘Beyond the Ivory Tower : The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

(18) = NASA 12 Jan 2010 ‘Is Antarctica Melting?’, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

(19) = NASA 15 Dec 2010 ‘Unstable Antarctica: What's Driving Ice Loss?’, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/unstable-antarctica.html

(20) = 23 Jan 2008 ‘Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss’, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

(21) = Search results on NASA website for ‘Antarctica ice’, http://search.nasa.gov/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=Antarctica+ice

(22) = Guardian.co.uk 11 jul 2007 ‘New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange1

(23) = Consequences Vol 2 No 1 1996 ‘The Sun and Climate’, http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/leanrind.html ; by Dr Judith Lean and David Rind

(24) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

Why I owe Gillian Duffy an apology - and Murdoch owes us all one

Today it's been revealed that the entire Gillian Duffy incident was created by Murdoch, who has switched from backing New Labour back to backing the Conservatives, just as he did under Thatcher.

It's normal in an interview by a TV station for them to remove their mike from the lapel of the interviewee at the end of it. Sky News - owned by News International, a Murdoch company, didn't do that with Gordon Brown.

Murdoch used to back Thatcher in elections in return for getting her to allow tax avoidance and tax cuts benefitting him and his firms and deregulation of media ownership so he could expand his business empire.

Then he allied to Blair and New Labour with the same deal. Now he's gone back to the Conservatives again - and his TV stations and newspapers have followed suit.

It also transpires that the Sun newspaper offered Mrs Duffy tens of thousands of pounds to say she hated Gordon Brown and would vote Conservative. She turned down the bribe and stuck to her principles. While I'm standing as an independent candidate because i've little time for most of 'New Labour's policies I can only admire her for that - and I used to be a Labour voter, like her.