Via Clive Davis, a quote from Richard Black taken from the BBC’s staff magazine Ariel:
In case you ever want to meet up in the blogosphere, I’m the guy with the target on his back. It’s big, it’s green and it flashes up a message saying “climate sceptics – shoot here”.
Yeah, but the target’s so big now that it’s not much of a sport any more.
It’s about time Black and his fellow BBC environment and science correspondents began asking some challenging questions concerning the machinations and motivations of their dissent-crushing friends within the climate science community. Of course that will be difficult given that all their reputations are collectively staked on the shaky MMGW house of cards staying up.
I wonder if the BBC will turn their attention to this story …
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/
Thanks for the tip about that story. I must get round to blogging about it sometime.
So Richard Black admits he’s not objective and that it’s us (warmers) vs them (sceptics) same as some scientists, especially those who’ve been found out. Poor Richard Black he’s such a martyr for the cause.
OT
The BBC is too far up Obama’s rear passage to run a skit like this one – from Saturday Night Live of all shows. Basically pointing out 5that Obama was scorned royally by the Chinese, dumped on.
http://tinyurl.com/y9nplxt
The problem with the drug taking leftist arts scumbags is they don’t understand science. Every theory in science is continually being tested, no theory is set in stone, it’s the beauty of science, the truth must always prevail. That’s why drug taking Guardian reading leftists don’t get science. In their world the truth or proof does not matter, it’s belief.
Astronomy is as science, astrology is a load of bollocks, we know which one the leftists believe in.
Another typical defensive tactic: playing the victim. He’s a target like all those who speak truth to power. Yeah, right. More evidence that the BBC is not impartial on certain issues, and knows it.
The BBC’s other Warmism preacher, Roger Harriban, is using his latest column to speak in defense of the CRU and his co-religionists.
Harriban’s Notes: E-mail arguments
Harriban gives his brethren at the CRU every opportunity to explain themselves, setting up straw man after straw man – misrepresenting the skeptics’ claims at nearly every turn – and handily swats them away.
There isn’t even a pretense of impartiality here, and the BBC bosses know that. They’ve already stated that the science is settled and that they’d prefer not to give any oxygen to “opponents of the consensus”. So it’s blatant bias at the BBC which is causing this important story to the online equivalent of the back pages.
It’s a serious story, with worldwide ramifications both economically and sociologically, but the BBC wants to hide it from you because they don’t believe it’s real.
In the meantime, honest people are providing possible evidence that these Warmists were deleting compromising emails when threatened with an FOI request.
Harriban didn’t tell you about that part, did he? Nothing to see here, move along. Put your money in the collection plate and your carbon sins will be absolved.
Only a moron thinks the science of anything is settled. Presumably twats like Harrabin think the science of physics was settled after Newton came up with his laws of motion? Einstein might as well have not bothered and just joined the queue of BBC drug addicts lining up for a Cocaine fix in Islington on a Friday night.
Might as well not bother with the large Hadron Collider, the science of quantum Physics is settled.
That statement “The science is settled” just shows how these thick arts based twats really are.
Does anybody have an email address for Harrabin? I’ve tried roger.harrabin@…….. but I haven’t yet had a reply, is this address correct?
Now the questions is what can we do to force the BBC to do something.
Journalistic mails are exempt from FOI requests. However, here there is evidence that Richard Black has strayed from impartiality into advocacy. We have an email from one side asking him to spike news, deal with one adverse article whereas he has put out many articles on the other side. There is a strong evidence of bias.
I’ve already complained about the bias, but we shall see what happens.
In the meantime perhaps an FOI request for his emails regarding putting out counter articles to a BBC skeptical article.
Perhaps requests for policy documents on bias in the climate arena?
Nick
The BBC effectively ignores this massive story and pushes it out of sight within one day.
So when can we expect to see the BBC start attacking the Government over the handling of the floods in Cumbria? After all people are homeless, running out of food, collapsed bridges need to be replaced and so on. Why are there not more helicopters available to bring in food and move people around?
I’m reminded of the BBC’s attacks on George Bush over the New Orleans floods, after all the one eyed idiot knew these floods were coming yet the Government seems totally unprepared.
Oh hang on it’s Labour in power……..
The floods are a perfect picture of BBC/newlabour complicity, the coverage by the BBC has been nothing short of scandalous, the pleas of locals to improve drainage was ignored, the funding for defences was stripped to fund other things and the warnings were ignored even from engineers who have been calling for bridge updating for years, the BBC see no evil they hear no evil and they certainly keep their mouths firmly closed.
One million pounds in funding from newlabour? that would just about cover the visit by Brown and his press toadies, the people of Cumbria will be left to swing in the wind as soon as Brown has wrung every last ounce of photo ops, as soon as the grim reality of the situation starts to emerge and how newlabour are responsible for the disasters effects then Brown will run away and hide while pushing a disposable lacky to the fore to take the flak. The BBC will soon be reporting that it was all a fall guys fault and Brown was calling for preventative action all along!
The continued silence from the BBC is deafening, they must realise that their role in reporting dodgy science and their complicity with fraudsters like Briffa/Jones/Mann/Hansen will come to haunt them in future, the cosy insider trading in fraudulant research and material passed on by sympathetic reporters like Harrabin/Black/Shukman will be seen as a betrayal of huge proportions.
The question is did the BBC know the material they were passing on was false and forged? Did the BBC engage in crooked and dubious methods by denying sceptical scientists a platform? I wonder if there is any correspondence between the fraudsters and the BBC science/enviroment department blacklisting certain scientists who departed from the AAM dogma?
BTW the BBC silence reminds me of the silence about the expenses scandal as it affected newlabour, their silence now almost condemns them, are they waiting while a cover story is cooked up between the offenders?
The BBC today prog has just aired a report about the email scandal with Nigel Lawson and Tom Watson given a chance to respond, Watson made a couple of very interesting comments when asked whether there had been any manipulation of the data. he said “there has been no negative manipulation of the data” and “there has been no manipulation of the data in a negative way” Hmmmm! Is Watson being careful in adding the “negative” proviso, is he saying that the data has in fact been manipulated but because it was manipulated/falsified in a way that supported the dogma orthodoxy it was acceptable? It seems to imply that forging data is fine because the ends are thought to be noble, I noted that Watson was very careful to avoid commenting on the most serious allegations of sabotaging other scientists and destroying data rather than handing it over to sceptics under the FOI laws.
Watson also made the comment that there has been “no significant warming over the last five to ten years” when in fact there has been NO warming insignificant or otherwise, in effect he lied on air to everyone as he must know that the global mean temperatures have been cooling NOT warming.
The UEA is either complicit in the fraud or they launch a full inquiry they cannot escape this can they?
Another interesting comment by Watson was the idea that the last fifty years to 2000 “can only be explained by CO2 emissions AND deforestation” very interesting comment, I believe the term is late hedge betting? In fact there are certainly other possible reasons for the slight post war warming of less than a degree(the margin of error is always kept secret BTW) not least solar forcing/Milankovich cycle/MDPO etc, in fact much of the evidence for human induced global warming is based on the now highly suspect work of the very people Watson is trying to cover.
Rejoice rejoice!
The BBC are reporting that because sixty odd leaders are now going to attend the Copenhagen festival of lies it will lead to a great success…er..uhm…yeah a great success.
Is that a news item or what? A really in depth full on no holds barred breaking news hold the front page mega blockbusting report worthy of an emmy at least eh? Shock news… some desperate leaders wanting a little publicity and phot ops go to Copenhagen even though no deals will be made and no point in the conference going ahead… cor blimey I am so excited by this momentus news I have to go pee pee!
It is a legitimate news item, although there is no reason why a much smaller team couldn’t handle it. We, and the BBC, will have no idea what deals, not necessarily about climate issues, will be made and between whom.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html
Later on, after the Lawson/Watson interview and the rejoicing over the 60 or so heads of state going to Copenhagen, Harrabin let slip the official BBC reaction to the CRU revelations: 1. the emails are stolen – Harrabin’s actual word – and are therefore tainted so their contents can be ignored 2. CRU have confirmed that all its data are sound and the science is settled 3. that’s it – now go away peasants and keep sending us the money.