Eco-warrior Jo Abbess, occasional editor of Roger Harrabin articles, is now focusing her attention on another BBC environment correspondent. I would quote some snippets but you really have to read the whole thing to get the full hilarious impact of her authoritarian pomposity.
The question is – will Richard Black follow Harrabin and do as Jo demands?
Update. It seems like a lot of effort considering Black is pretty much on her side anyway.
I find the continual use of the phrase ” the science” absurd.What does it mean?
Also the use of the word “denial” implies that she has the truth ,the whole and absolute truth.
These people are not the inheritors of the age of reason but the inheritors of an altogether more irrational age.
I read that as being a spoof. It must be.
Maybe she’s being paid by an oil company to make an arse of herself?
Agree. It is beyond parody. ‘The Green Information Terrorist who keeps on giving’?
As is the quaint cabal that inhabits Mr. Black’s blog and actually concoct (often aggressive and abusive) strategies to drive others who disagree away from it to keep it ‘pure’.
Oddly, with the benign encouragement of the author and his mods.
I think they now have the power of law behind them to do so, mind.
I got to “vested corporate interests” before chuckling to myself. Oh all those vested interests…
Jo Abbess (eco-warrior extraordinaire) early on made her mind up what was Good Science, Bad Science and Non-Science.
Why are the “vested govt interests” behind the funding of pro AGW scientists never considered as undermining their conclusions, yet get the private sector involved and woa!!!
So she rails against Black and questions “Do you understand Climate Change science ? Do you have a relevant degree or training ? Are you able to tell the difference between spin and science ?” but then in her profile she tells how she has been educated in “Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Electromagnetics and Electronics” – not a word about Climatology, so maybe she can’t tell the difference between science and spin?
Anyone who states that the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “Hockey Stick” has been validated by sunsequent independant studies does not know their Amal from their Bristlecones
I got as far as the claims abou the hockey stick graph before I could hold it together no more and simply burst out laughing.
Also this part caught my eye:
“There should no longer be any piece from the BBC that shows confusion about Climate Change science, or quotes denialist arguments, or sympathises with those wishing to delay/minimise Global Warming mitigation.
It’s not right to pacify people….”
is that not just massively hypocritical or have I read it wrong?
Does this vile harpie going on about BBC bias because they don’t promote her own views remind you of anyone?
Obamessiah and Fox?
Errrrr,no!
The cynic in me assumes this has been written so that Black can continue with his line:
I’m being attacked from both sides so I must be impartial