Monthly Archives: November 2009

World Have Your Say

By | |
16 Comments

Last week I noted that the producers of the BBC’s World Service programme WHYS were complaining that they couldn’t generate any interest in Copenhagen and climate change. Well there’s plenty of interest now, and last night the programme actually had three sceptics on: the great Christopher Booker, Patrick Michaels from the Cato Institute, and Prof Richard Lindzen from MIT (who hung up the phone in despair at the quality of argument when he was compared to, among other things, a slavery denier [new one on me] by a representative from a Kenyan NGO). There were also three believers in MMGW, plus presenter Ros Atkins who was clearly antagonistic towards the sceptics (or deniers as he called them on more than one occasion). (Download podcast here.)

This level of balance appears to have been too much for the warmists because Atkins has had to defend the decision to have the sceptics on. The alarmists are trying to close down the debate again; it is essential that pressure is kept on the BBC to ensure that the sceptical voices we’ve heard on the airwaves over the past couple of days are not just some temporary token gesture.

Update. Forgot to add – the sceptics kicked ass!

Update 2. Great piece by Gerald Warner on the BBC’s coverage of Climategate. (Hat tip George R).

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Re : Sarah Palin (and Barack Obama)

By | |
2 Comments

Don’t expect to see these polls featuring on the Today programme tomorrow.

Not that it matters politically because obviously she’s a female Republican dunce and he’s obviously a male Democratic genius.

But Sarah Palin’s poll numbers are strengthening.

And President Obama’s are sliding.

Guess what? They’re about to meet in the 40s.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BIASED AND ARROGANT!

By | |
1 Comment

Excellent article here by George Pitcher on the arrogance that defines the leadership of the BBC.

“There is now a Versailles mentality among the BBC aristocracy. On being told in their plush parlours that we peasants are being starved of decent broadcasting, the response is less “let them eat cake” as “let them watch cack”. But we peasants are revolting. I’m sure BBC execs would smirk in ironic agreement at that observation, but they would do well to mark that the public mood has turned ugly towards those who line their pockets at our expense.
There has been an assumption among the political and banking classes that all this will blow over and that they will return to business as normal, as they see it; that’s why parliamentary reform has been dilatory and the shameless “bonuses are back” slogan is heard in banks, even after their semi-nationalisation.
The third pillar of our public-sector greed culture is the BBC. The signs are that the public stick will eventually discipline Parliament and the City into behaving in a better manner than sponging off the state, which means us. So it must and will be for the BBC.”

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

IS IT COS I IS BLACK?

By | |
14 Comments

Familiar BBC meme – the Police are racist. This morning the BBC has covered concerns raised over routine DNA tests which seem to suggest that some groups featured disproportionately on the database – with young black men “very highly over-represented.” I guess that means one of two things – either our Police are indeed racist or young black men commit more crime than the population average. I notice that the BBC don’t pursue the latter possibility. Why?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

SYNCHRONICITY…

By | |
12 Comments

And just when it seemed like the BBC might be having second thoughts on the validity of the AGW agenda is has pursued with such vigour!

“Three UK groups studying climate change have issued an unprecedented statement about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council say the science underpinning climate change is more alarming than ever. They say the 2007 UK floods, 2003 heatwave in Europe and recent droughts were consistent with emerging patterns. Their comments came ahead of crunch UN climate talks in Copenhagen next month.”

The tone and content of the debate this morning could not be clearer – the world is going to suffer unprecedented global warming unless our leaders at Copenhagen gain agreement on how to tax the hell out of us and cripple our economies. Talk about hot air…

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC "SAT ON CRU FILES FOR A MONTH"

By | |
14 Comments

Truly astonishing things are beginning to happen at the BBC over the CRU emails. First, Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics yesterday posed some decent questions about what had gone on at CRU and about the climate change record generally. Second, a genuine climate change sceptic (Professor Fred Singer) was allowed to speak, only the second time in recent history that I’ve seen this happen. Thirdly, Neil worked hard to expose the vacuity of the warmist stance.

I’ve never seen an interview like that on the BBC, ever, and believe you me, I’ve searched.

Next, the fanatic warmist Harrabin actually seems to be treating the CRU hacking as a story that might matter. Perhaps it’s because his chum George Monbiot has called for the resignation of CRU boss Phil Jones, but whatever the reason, I’ve seen correspondence that shows him to be on the case. And last night, he actually broadcast a piece on Radio 4 which, to quote the excellent Bishop Hill, was “not a complete whitewash”. That’s a miracle.

Finally, there could be even further reverberations to come. It seems that the BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson – he who last month shocked us all by becoming one of the first BBC staffers to admit that there were holes in warmist propaganda- has revealed on his blog that he had received, and had been sitting on, the hacked email files from CRU for more than a month. You couldn’t make this up.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Same Old Same Old …

By | |
6 Comments

The BBC’s Matt Frei is surely a worthy successor to Justin Webb. Take a listen to Sunday’s “Americana” on Radio Four – although I must warn you that you will never get those 30 minutes of your life back (fortunately I had a long drive to do on Sunday).

“As Sarah Palin kicks off her book tour around the nation this week, Americana takes time to learn more about the women that represent America as well as the women who work each day to make it run.”

Otherwise known as ‘let’s find a succession of women to take a pop at Sarah Palin‘.

I particularly liked the woman chosen to give us the more sympathetic take on Palin, the BBC’s idea of a ‘devil’s advocate’, one Amy Alexander, whose website shows, er, an interesting sensibility.

“Demonising Sarah Palin solidifies Sarah Palin’s base – the same crowd that calls President Barack Obama a socialist, a totalitarian sleeper and worse. The Left’s relentless demeaning of Palin gives more fuel to this crowd’s perverse, puritanical sense of victimisation. Palin, after all, is a human being – she is therefore worthy of respect. And for the liberal feminists out there of any gender, it is foolish not to admit that Sarah Palin posesses a high degree of ambition, self-confidence, and what we Americans call moxie – gumption to everyone else. Those are qualities we say we want to cultivate in women. I think it’s time we stopped fretting about Palin’s hypocrisy, contradictions, mangled syntax and stagey flag-waving, and acknowledged the postive parts of her persona. They do exist, and recognising them does not require you to dismiss her obvious shortcomings“.

She really came out fighting for Palin, didn’t she … the main guest, one ‘Cokey’ Roberts (I won’t hazard a guess how she got that name) turned out not to have actually read Palin’s book – but she apparently knew what was in it without reading it !

(One Republican representative was interviewed – and Frei opened by opining that Palin was a wake-up call to the ‘white old men’ of the party. And so it goes …).

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Not in a bad way…

By | |
31 Comments

We finally got a discussion about the CRU emails on the BBC with Lord Lawson and UEA Professor Robert Watson appearing on the Today programme this morning. Listen here.

I, like Cassandra in the comments, was struck by the little qualifying statements made by Professor Watson:

“These scientists at the University of East Anglia are both honourable and world class. Their data is not being manipulated in any bad way whatsoever… these scientists are not manipulating or hiding anything… UEA work with the British Met Office and they’re absolutely beyond doubt that they have not manipulated the data in any negative sense…”

Depends what you mean by “bad” and “negative”, I guess. Fiddling the code, changing results, deleting emails, claiming to have lost data and threatening to destroy it rather than release it through FOI requests, getting those who disagree removed from prominent positions, refusing to include contradictory research in the IPCC report – just a brief list of the things done by these “honourable and world class” scientists. But not in a bad way.

Here’s a neat little quiz highlighting some of the honourable activities revealed by the emails.

I’m reminded of the words of comedian Dom Irrera:

“When people say to me, “Can I be honest with you?” No, please be as misleading and deceitful as possible, that’s all I’d expect from a lowlife scumbag like you. And I don’t mean that in a bad way.”

(Update – sorry, didn’t notice that David had already posted on this.)

Update 13.15. Tonight’s edition of Newsnight:

Susan Watts will be bringing us the latest on the story that the e-mail system of one of the world’s leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.

Watts, you may recall, is no stranger to the manipulation of information where climate change is concerned.

[Newsnight also has a film on “controversial” Polish MEP Michal Kaminski. How many BBC reports have there been on this one man? Where are the equivalent investigations into senior European politicians with “controversial” left-wing backgrounds (the new unelected European foreign minister, for example)?]

Update 16.15. Compare and contrast.

From Richard Black’s blog:

Update 2 – 0930 GMT Monday 23 November: We have now re-opened comments on this post. However, legal considerations mean that we will not publish comments quoting from e-mails purporting to be those stolen from the University of East Anglia, nor comments linking to other sites quoting from that material.

From this morning’s Today programme (emphasis added):

When the Sultan of the Gulf state of Oman was overthrown by his son in July 1970, the coup was painted as a family affair. But secret documents obtained by the BBC prove that the British government helped plan the revolt, partly to safeguard its interests there. The papers, which were released by mistake and have now been closed again to the public, are the subject of Radio 4’s Document programme. Mike Thomson reports on how the documents show that ministers ordered British officers seconded to the Sultan’s army to help oust him by force if the coup appeared to be failing.

CRU emails? No way!
State secrets? Meh.

Update 16.30. BBC weatherman Paul Hudson (whose article “What happened to global warming?” caused such a stir) is quite happy to link to the emails on his blog.

Update 18.20. Thanks to Guest in the comments for spotting once again that the BBC WHYS blog has bumped its post on climate change, making my updated link redundant as the earlier one. In its latest version the blog now asks:

So, is it hard to engage people in a debate over what to do about climate change simply because they believe that climate change is a conspiracy?

As anybody who has given more than cursory glance to the emails will know, it’s the people behind climate change alarmism who have been refusing “to engage people in debate”, preferring instead to hide and manipulate data while smearing those with opposing views.

Update 18.40. One more thing – the WHYS blog, like Paul Hudson but not Richard Black, does link to the emails. Rumours that the online editors are all away on a BBC course called “Arse and elbow – how to tell the difference” are unconfirmed at this point.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

ON THAT SPANISH FLAG INCIDENT

By | | ,
4 Comments

The BBC has been anxious to make us aware how put out the ppor Spanish are over the alleged firing by the Royal Navy on a Spanish flag on a buoy in the straits of Gibraltar. Jeremy Paxman’s brother, Giles, who is British Ambassador to Spain (natch) has apologised for any misunderstandings (shamefully, in my view but this is not enough and the Spanish opposition is now calling for a “tougher line” on Gibraltar. The BBC allows a Spanish analyst to offer his insight on the issue which is fair enough but where is the effort to allow a Gibraltarian perspective? I suggest the BBC should contact B-BBC contributor the All Seeing Eye if they want to try and introduce a little balance here.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.