I have read very carefully Richard Black’s defence of the BBC’s reporting of the so-called problem of “climate change” (mentioned by David Vance in a previous post). It’s an important statement that shockingly reveals the depth of the malais and dishonesty in BBC journalism. He’s in that strange cloud cuckoo land that BBC reporters inhabit, and he’s deployed all the standard BBC responses to claims of bias, especially the one that if both sides of a particular argument complain about a BBC feature, the corporation must be in the middle somewhere and therefore right.
What he doesn’t take into account, of course, is the fanatacism of the warmists who yell “rape” loudly the minute anyone questions their cherished religious beliefs; and what he studiously avoids (the elephant in the room) is the fact that in the years I have been following the BBC’s “climate change” coverage, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of stories where the views of warmists – no matter how ridiculous or untrue (as in Gordon Brown’s maniacal codswallop this morning) – are reported unchallenged, while those containing the views of so-called “sceptics” can be counted on a few hands.
What he also doesn’t say is that the BBC Director general recently told a meeting of the Parliamentary media group that in his view, there is a “consensus” of scientific opinion that supports global warming, and therefore the BBC’s responsibility in reporting such “science” is to give prominence and precedence to the warmists. Thus there is deliberate, systematic under-reporting of “scepticism” sanctioned at the highest level of the corporation.
A test of Richard Black’s assertion that the BBC is getting it right could not be simpler. Take for example, the stunt a couple of days ago when the (Muslim, western-hating) cabinet of the Maldives met underwater to protest about “climate change”. Their views were given wall-to-wall Beeb coverage, not only on the website, but in BBC1 bulletins. What was conspicuously absent from the BBC’s reports were the views of the many scientists who have surveyed the Maldives and found that sea levels there are actually falling. The Watts Up With That website has shown persuasively that the government of the Maldives not only know that this is the case, but that also, they have actively censored the evidence.
When Richard Black and the rest of his BBC chums start publishing such information, I will be open to the idea that they might be changing. Until then, they remain climate change fanatics, bent on spreading scientific hocus-pocus of a type not seen this seen of the Enlightenment.
Meanwhile the US is alredy starting to see record lows for October. Florida is freezing today.
Al Bore must be in town.
It doesnt matter. Gordy is going to save us all from destruction!
I am sick to death of the BBC (and to be fair other MSM) who propagate whoppers of lies. Not once have the predictions come true and yet they still lie to the public. When will this madness ever end. Cameron is just as bad. Trouble is, can you imagine if an MP of any party told the BBC that climate change was nonsense? God I think that that person would be harangued to death.
Well there is Sammy Wilson the enviroment minister in NI who doesn’t tow the line. He banned the CO2 adverts ,so I believe calling them “New Labour propaganda”. – we need more like him.
Well done him. I didnt know that living in England.
I’m rather surprised that Cameron hasn’t attempted to call Brown on this one. After all, if he did he wouldn’t lose any support because popular opinion, not to mention conventional wisdom is very much anti the AGW lie.
thespecialone – I too live in England. I read this on the oneline version of the Belfast Telegraph – needless to say I don’t think he has been on Question Time or any other BBC programme as far as I am aware.
I believe he was interviewed by Eddie Mair on the PM programme a while back. It was a very aggressive interview, along the lines of:
Eddie Mair: “So you’re a climate change denier?”
Sammy Wilson: “Not at all, no-one would deny that climate changes all the time.”
My recollection is that he came out of the interview very well.
Nice piece Robin – I too have been following the BBC fanatasism on this subject for some years.
Gordon Brown is quoted by the BBC saying “we only have 50 days in which to save the world. “If we don’t do anything we will have more droughts and floods”. The BBC of course don’t bother to ask this idiot where he acually got this prediction from – is it something he thought up or did someone tell him. Maybe he has a message from God like a latter day Noah.
And then we find out that “environmentalists are still not happy” – which “environmentalists”? We don’t know – certainly not David Bellamy who is an environmentalist or Patrick Moore the founder of Greenpeace. Why are they unamed? Maybe its Harribin and his friend Jo Abbess .
The “50 days” warning is utterly ridiculous as this refers to the 50 days until the start of the Copenhagen Summit – do you think there’s any chance they could put the summit back a week so we at least have a fighting chance?
The argument is NOT about the fact that the climate changes, it’s about the root causes. The warmists are deniers of any involvement of external forces in climate change, most of us that are ‘balanced’ in their views accept that the climate DOES change, it always has and it always will, but what other factorts can influence the climate.
The TRUTH is that none of the climate change models take these external factors into consideration because no one fully understands the interaction of these influences with the climate.
At the end of the day a few thousand unwashed left wing liberal scum won’t convince me that humans are the prime cause of climate change. Clearly humans have some effect, but unless you want to exterminate the whole human population you’re always going to have that to deal with.
I agree with you Martin but it’s much worse because the Copenhargen agreement is about setting up a World Government run by those few thousand left wing liberal scum that will make the EEC look like a walk in the park, with us transfering large sums of money to other countries because we are supposed to have caused Global warming, and our Government are walking us into it.
Everyone should download a copy and read it before it’s too late.
It is no coincidence that the rise in “AGW” hysteria has coincided with the increase in power given to the EU by weak governments.
“And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton
Good to see Andrew Neil sticking it to Hilary Benn and Michael Mansfield on today’s ‘Daily Politics’ (beginning about 4 minutes in). He had them on the run. I’ve never heard a BBC interviewer ask such questions before on climate change. Then again Andrew Neil’s not like other BBC interviewers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics
Saw some reasonable discussion on Sky News today. Some GW apologist (we are at tipping point blah blah) and a chap called Piers Corbyn from Weather Action who was very sensible and based his entire argument on proven and provable science.
Piers was allowed to put his points forward and question without meaningless interruption from the interviewer.
Mr. Corbyn put forward some of the best arguments that I’ve heard.
BBC – watch and learn.
Not sure if you are allowed to publish links to other sites so apologies if so and please delete as necessary.
The Weather Actionresponse to a BBC GW propaganda programme:
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact10&fsize=0
For me, the BBC will remain climate change fanatics, bent on spreading scientific hocus-pocus until they start reporting the flaws in the alarmist “science”. At the moment they churn out the press releases any warmist group gives them – just look at the uncritical way they promote the joke Catlin Survey.
For all his bluster, Richard Black is a biased, global warming promoter until he reports:
that the main evidence for global warming – the temperature records – has been “lost”;
that the data for the hockey stick has been cherry picked by using just 12 tree records out of hundreds;
and that to bolster their case, the alarmist clique are even known invert their data so that a downward trend magically slants upwards.
Yes Andrew Neil tore that prat Hiliary Benn a new on on the Daily Politics and that prat Michael Mansfield.
And I loved the bit when Benn said to Neil that “you’re not a scientist” nope he isn’t and neither is Richard Black, Roger Harrabin or David Shuckman, but that doesn’t stop them from spouting shite about climate change.
Mansfield was also quoting the hockey stick graph, something as reliable as a Gordon Brown promise.
How can anyone suggest that global temperature rises from around 1850 be down to human activity when there were no power stations, no airports, no cars nearly all ships were sail powered, the total world population was only about 500 million people and most of the planet was not industrial?
The truth is tits like Benn don’t have a clue and notice how they swap from the north to the south pole when it suits them.
The BBC by way of their mindless moronic mouthpieces Black/Shukman/Harrabin are only expressing the greater political narrative supported by the Tories/libdems/newlabour.
The political classes are peddling and supporting the lies and fraud, the regime is financing and directing toady institutions like the met office headed by an ecomentalist fanatic called Napier and the Hadley climate research unit staffed by a motley collection of fraudsters/charletons/nutters/rent seekers all toeing the line and getting handsomely rewarded for it.
The BBC must be aware of the Mann fraud and the Briffa fraud and the Hansen fraud and the Gore fraud, from the faked hockey stick to the one tree proxy and onto the IPCC charade stealing faked up graphs from wiki(thats science is it?).
Faked reports about the Maldives who incidentaly have become the surprise recipients of hundreds of millions in bribes(grants) just at the time they just happen to support the AGW disaster scenario, funny that eh? I wonder if the Maldives would have got that free bribe cash if they had admitted that sea levels have not affected them in the slightest in reality?
Billions of ££$$ is up for grabs to any scientist who toes the AGW narrative, woe betide any who dissent because they get nothing, their names marked down in the big book of deniers for future fererence of course!
Ever wondered why governments were so keen to wrench control of the funding pursestrings away from scientists and into the hands of quangocrats? he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The Copenhagen fraud later this year has been decided beforehand, they al know the AGW fraud is a pack of lies BUT this pack of lies carries the rich promise of NWO/CP eternal power, endless wealth for the few and power for the world elite, the masses pay the price and the elite harvest the fruits and dont think that by voting conservative things will change one bit, Cameron is a key part of the fraud!
Ben: it might have been just 1 tree – http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7241
Its well worth mentioning the conservatives under Cameron are fully signed upto the manmade global warming fraud, the Tories are every bit as commited to enacting damaging laws and industry kiling regulation, the Tories are fully on board the EU train to hell, there is NO possibility of the conservatives taking a different approach or even asking difficult questions, the Tories are blind and deaf to the AAM/AGW/MMCC fraud, if anything they are even more fanatical than newlabour although not quite as insane as the libdems/greeens, the Tories are ready and waiting to enact all the EU laws cocerning the destruction of our industrial base and the subjugation of our society through petty choking laws and regulations.
For anyone who is a sceptic about AAM/AGW/MMCC the idea of voting Tory at the next election is a non starter, we know where the Tories stand, we now know their intentions and their commitment to the ugly anti democratic alarmist fraud.
Would anyone out there still vote conservative at the next election knowing full well that their is no difference between newlabour and Tory policies on the global warming fraud? Please let me know if anyone who is a sceptic and still intends to vote Tory. 😉
Cassandra, one just has to mention the name “Zac Goldsmith” to remind me why I am unlikely to vote Conservative in the next election, despite my deep dislike of Labour and Gordon Brown.
And I speak as one who is in the rare position of living in a Scottish seat which just might go Tory.
Why do I refer to the AGW/AAM/MMCC theory as proposed by the IPCC,the met office,the Hadley CRU, governments as a fraud?
The majority of ‘evidence’ for 20th century warming comes from temperature reconstructions calculated by the Hadley CRU, their temperature reconstructions are widely used to prove rapid warming but we know know that that when asked to provide the raw data they used so others could attempt to reconsruct and falsify the end product it was stated that the raw data had been “lost” so nobody can now prove or more importantly disprove the the temperature reconstructions as provided to the IPCC and others.
What does this “loss” of raw data mean then? It means that all the graphs/charts/proofs/evidence/papers/computer models are WORTHLESS and MEANINGLESS.
Keith Briffa is the author of research into past temperatures by way of tree ring proxies and his work has been widely used and quoted in pro AGW papers and yet we now know that his research was based around a cherry picked subset of tree rings from a tiny number of tree samples, one tree in fact and he spent years trying to hide his raw data and no wonder he tried to block access, his work so widely used by others is a complete fraud, his entire contribution to the field of climate research is now null and void and it also voids any work based on that fraudulant research doesnt it?
Taken with Manns fraudulant research it means that the majority of recent research and scientific reports and papers using that data is now null and void!
Yet the MSM and the BBC has nothing to say on this major scandal, the BBCs investigative hacks are silent as the grave, they have no comment, they have no interest, they are not making a list of all the reports that they have based on this fruadulant research, they are no even acknowleging the existence of the scandal UNTILL the fraudsters can construct a defence of course, when the defence is constructed and ready then the BBC will report the acccusations in the worst possible light while giving the defence the best possible coverage, if thats not fraudulant then I dont know what is!
The evidence for fraud is growing, a scandal only matched by the MSMs refusal to acknowledge the fraud.
When the fraudulant data is removed from IPCC predictions and government findings via their bought of toadies like King etc then the whole AGW charade can be seen to be as worthless and flawed as an economic prediction by Gordon Brown.
BBC prefers its hysterical climate propaganda to reporting facts on mass immigration to UK:
‘Immigration up more than two million in eight years’
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressReleases/19-October-2009
The real problem about the biffra affair is that he was a lead author for the IPCC report, his work was used directly to support the IPCC output proving global warming ™ was made made and everything was structured to get his work in to the IPCC.
The issue here is credibility. Even though another author involved in the IPCC (McIntyre) pointed out problems with his methodology, his comments were ignored because Biffra’s work was needed to support the predetermined outcome of the IPCC.
And here again we have another massive issue. These scientists, while they might not be deliberately “evil”, now have so much invested in global warming ™ that they will not go back on themselves because that will destroy their careers.
Therein lies the real problem here people. These scientists are human after all and after investing so much time, effort and money in to man made global warming ™ they arent about to turn around and say its all a pile of hockey stick are they?
Mailman
Had a gander at the latest Richard Black blog, and a few preceding.
I notice it seems to have acquired Mr. Robinson’s habit of ‘closing for comments’ at rather arbitrary points.
Why do they do that?
Can’t be a system limit as he admits one holds the record of 13,000.
So, who ‘decides’ the argument is ‘over’. And why?
Investigate the BBC’s climate scares, as well as Labour’s:
“‘Scary’ UK climate ad faces probe”
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8317998.stm