Changing minds at the BBC, a few words at a time…

A vvvery humble Devil has done some fact-checking on the BBC’s reporting of the venerable Al Gore, and guess what?

They’ve overstated his credentials as a climate change “expert”. Well, go and read all about it, but what is noticeable for me is the tone of forced gratitude on the part of the BBC journalist, Roger Harrabin, and the inadequate way a partial correction is made.

The question is whether Gore ever studied climate science at university at all, as the BBC continue to state.

Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Changing minds at the BBC, a few words at a time…

  1. Haversack says:

    Harrabin’s article is very clearly a contentious opinion piece, and, despite a little tiff between them that he reports towards the end of it, far too kind to Gore. This is despite Harrabin in effect admitting that Gore was basically trying to pass off false propaganda as fact. But he excuses Gore on the grounds that “the film was made as a polemic, not an educational tool for children”.

    One particularly sickening bit of arse-licking: Gore “reveals himself in the movie to be a master of factual recall and presentation skill”.


  2. Steve says:

    How do you figure ‘forced apology’?


  3. Stephanie clague says:

    Al Gore is a fake! He has always been a fake! If he’s a scientist i’ll eat my hat! and yet the BBC would never criticise him and out his lying and dissembling! To the BBC he is a hero and he can do no wrong but like all the leftist/socialist heroes from Che to Lennin they are all deeply flawed! How long before the truth about Gore comes out? will the BBC admit their failings? dont hold your breath!


  4. David Preiser says:

    From an old Washington Post article about Gore:

    “The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man’s Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.

    He was an English major, and a liberal arts student in the US is (or, at least, was) required to take a couple of introductory courses in things like science and history in order to be well-rounded. Gore would probably never have set foot in the science building otherwise.

    Full article, which the BBC will never read, here:

    I’ll bet someone can find his full transcript somewhere, too.


  5. David Preiser says:

    This is as much as I can find:


  6. Martin says:

    Yet another failed politician that is useless with engineering and science. It’s why I laugh when wet liberal leftie types (including David Cameron) prattle on about the science of global warming being “conclusive”.

    The BBC fails to challenge them on any of the technical aspects of the science. Why not? Most politicians would be publically humiliated if they did?


  7. Michael Taylor says:

    This is very funny. At best, you might say that Harrabin’s assertion that Al Gore ‘first studied climate science when he was at university’ isn’t actually quite a lie or an error . . . not quite.

    And after all, as Harrabin himself might argue, his piece ‘was made as a polemic, not an educational tool for children’ so it doesn’t really matter anyway, does it?

    Apart from that, the thing that one really notices about Mr Harrabin’s article is his enthusiasm for playing the man (ie, Mr Dimmock) not the ball in the issue of just how accurate or otherwise Mr Gore’s video-lecture is. Nasty tactic, really, particularly in response to a High Court ruling.

    For these two tendencies – gullibility with facts, and tendency to play the man not the ball – I think we should keep a particularly close eye on Mr Harrabin in the future. It might clean up his game a bit.


  8. Ritter says:

    I attended geography and biology lessons at school – does that mean I have ‘studied climate science’? According to Harrabin’s logic, it does!


  9. backwoodsman says:

    Always worth challenging the beeboids over their presentation of worthless opinionated left wing hacks as ‘experts’ – it only took two letters to get them to admit that george monbiot was…an opinionated left wing hack and no more qualified than my dog to be called an expert on the environment.


  10. Tony Clark says:

    Never mind showing Al Gore’s dubious propaganda to our schoolchildren, what about compulsory viewing of the Channel 4 Dispatches program on climate change for all MPs and beeboids?
    And didn’t big Al walk off stage in a strop when faced with some stiff questions raised in this program?

    We all know there’s global warming, it’s ‘why’ that needs an answer. Many scientists, based on research by the Danish Space Center, think it’s down to solar wind activity which reduce cloud cover and increase water vapourisation (clouds account for 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect). Just ask Al Gore why polar ice caps are melting on Mars and both Mars and Jupiter are warming up at the same rate as Earth or does he believe there are little green men on Mars belching out CO2.

    Too many well paid research, media and political jobs depend on scare mongering findings. Politicians use CO2 as a means of extracting more taxes and the BBC obey their masters.

    Here’s my take on the maths ….
    CO2 (carbon dioxide) is 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
    97% of all CO2 is natural and 3% of CO2 is man made.
    Therefore man made CO2 accounts for 0.0012% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
    The UK is responsible for 2% of the world’s man made CO2.
    Therefore the UK’s contribution to the world’s man made CO2 emissions is 0.06%.
    Therefore a 10% reduction in the UK CO2 emissions = 10% of 2% of 3% of 0.04%.
    This equals 0.0000024% reduction in the world’s total emissions of greenhouse gasse