Professor Phil Jones, the man whose statistics-manipulating department at CRU is at the heart of ClimateGate, has stepped down, pending an investigation of what went on. To my amazement, the BBC is reporting the story this morning, but – true to form – the main aim of the item is to put across the professor’s point of view, that “sceptics” (climate realists) have taken his words out of context and the whole thing is a storm in a teacup.
Meanwhile, the real media gets on with reporting the facts. Bishop Hill has an item suggesting that Michael Mann and Professor Jones conspired together to knock climate realists using questionable data. And the redoubtable Lord Monckton has published a PDF report summing up the whole ClimateGate affair.
Compare and contrast that to the whitewash spouted yesterday by the BBC’s Roger Harrabin.
Just watched a BBC Breakfast news slot with a bunch of people only now ‘realising’ that if they take 15 minute showers they spend more money than if they use metered, flowing heated water for less time. Well, D’uh.
And all the emails read out by the teleprompter totty were like some kind of home shopping channel commercial in support.
All praising some meter which, wait for it… ‘the government says will…’
Now, so long as the money this thing costs is fair and the (minimal) extra juice it consumes is offset by savings, fair enough. But having been sent a wireless one years ago that was popped on the incoming cable, followed for a few days and forgotten about, it simply becomes yet another green gizmo.
Hence in every sense of the word, and noting the trust level I have now, when the establishment comes out with such ‘it’s good for you’ tripe with gurning happy folk, my first thought is not ‘I’d like one’, it was ‘what dodgy self-serving scheme am I being set up for now, with the BBC a complicit PR system for the powers that be (and want our money)?’.
There was a trailer on Radio 4 this morning for The Moral Maze which is dealing with Climategate and, much to my surprise, mentioned that the leaked data is said to show manipulation of the data. But “not by much”, it went on to say.
Who is the judge of that? Given that this aspect has never, as far as I have noticed, been touched on by the BBC I don’t see how they could possibly come to that judgement. Unless of course we’re about to see reports from the BBC making this very point because they’ve decided they can’t keep quiet about it any longer so had better start getting their rebuttal in. They’ve had long enough to arrange it.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-imminent-demise-of-glaciers-due-to-a-typo/2/
Hmmmm…I saw this being touted on al beeb (the 2035 bit). Wonder if they will make the required correction?
Mailman
Some typo – maybe these “bedwetters” see what they want to see.
Roland 8:06
Maybe the BBC will admit to manipulating news generally, but “not by much”, so that is ok then.
They really are the pits.
Any scientists found to be manipulating data at all must be banned from ever practising science again.
Grant, lovely post , sums up the position admirably.
And the beeboid response on Toady, to quote the man caught red handed admitting in print to falsifying data, that the accusations were ‘rubbish’.
The BBC is pushing the only a “trick” misunderstanding line as hard as it can.
Combine that with its outrageous Copenhagasmic coverage.
But I think they know the game is nearly up – as the odd sceptic article is getting through ( to allow them to pass a subsequent inquiry to their brainwashing of the public and failure to properly inquire after the science ) – eg the Himalaya glacier expansions.
But even that piece about the Himalayan glaciers is dishonest.
It certainly is, Listen to the experts.
“V. K. Raina, a leading glaciologist and former Additional Director-General of Geological Survey of India (GSI), claimed recently that the issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalized by a few individuals.
“Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that the Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly. He maintains that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes which are witnessed periodically.
“Raina’s views were echoed by Dr. R. K. Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology, who is supervising study of glaciers in northern Kashmirs Ladakh region, including one in the Siachen area. He also maintains that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalayan glaciers studied so far by him.”
http://www.iceagenow.com/Indian_Scientists_Debunk_UN_Glacier_Retreat_Claim.htm
Even the head of the IPCC does not seem to consult his fellow countrymen. But then again what does a railway engineer know about glaciers?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2009/dec/02/world-have-your-say
‘It’s more the transparency and inclusiveness in the show’s rhetoric and practice that sets it apart…’
Plus its awesome editorial balance…
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/whys-and-the-climate-change-sceptics/
Oh, and their ‘interesting’ moderation policies. My comment on the national broadcaster seeing itself as an ‘us’ vs. a ‘them’ never made the cut.
I have a formal complaint in.
On a bit of a roll having pointed out dodgy practices on Justin ‘Newsnight’s Ethical Man’ blog, and had a full apology for some ‘errors’:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/11/a_guide_to_making_your_fortune.html#comments
Numbers not their strong suit. Nor is playing straight until nailed. Or ‘fessing up.
Unique.
Harrabin and Shukman really are a disgrace. I don’t know what they studied but I’ll bet it had nothing to do with science.
When this scandal erupts I do hope they will be taken to task for their propagandist bullshit.
Don’t know about Shitman, but Harrabin has a degree in English which I don’t think qualifies you to do anything in particular (except be a professional twat) and certainly not analyse scientific data.
“Out of text, Out of text” – Now where have I heard that before, and quite regularly.
>Harrabin and Shukman really are a disgrace. I don’t know what they >studied but I’ll bet it had nothing to do with science.
Harrabin read English at Cambridge; Shukman Geography at Durham.
Not much physics or maths there …
BBC – continually shafted by the facts.
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting
Tom Crowley on BBC
“Regular readers of Climate Audit will probably need a strong stomach to take Crowley’s comments in this BBC Radio interview.”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/30/tom-crowley-on-bbc.html
Whether or not Harrabin and Shukman are scientists is neither here nor there. What I want to see is a bit of honesty. If there’s a genuine disagreement, the news is the disagreement and the reasons for the disagreement. Journalists – specialising in the reportage of a particular issue – are there to report the news not take sides. Non-scientists are well able to understand (and convey) what the issues are here. You don’t have to be a practising scientist to understand (or report) that “science” has been grossly betrayed in the whole AGW saga: the scientists cheering on the AGW theory don’t come out very well from the CRU revelations.
Unfortunately Shukman, Harrabin and Black have only reported from one side dismissing or ridiculing (where they even acknowledge) any sceptical arguments. This is as much a betrayal of journalism as it is of science. In fact one of the leaked emails
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt
implicates Black as being in the pocket of the warmists. This might be big talk from Mann but, given Black’s record concerning AGW reportage, it has the ring of truth. Meanwhile the BBC (and most of the other MSM to be fair) continue ratcheting up the panic: they really are desperate.
Except the Daily Express.
The BBC reports the content of the e:mails as having been taken “out of context”. However, the threads of each e:mail from start to end were left in place so that the context remains clear to anyone who reads them. The BBC should know that on certain occasions, the attempted cover-up causes more problems to the parties involved than that which is being covered-up. (In this case though, given the scale of the attempted fraud, it’s not so)
Backwoodsman 9:53
Thanks. I should have added that any journalists caught manipulating facts or fabricating stories should be banned from journalism. But then journalism is not a profession in the real sense.
Is selling crappy second hand cars a profession? Probably not, journalists might mock politicians for being hated by the public, but crap drug addled beeboids are down there in the sewer with them.
Umbongo 16:23
Well said !
Check out this bit of blatant Watermelon Warmist propaganda from the BBC. In the middle of their news brief about the Australian Senate rejecting the cap-and-trade scheme submitted by the Government, the freaking Beeboids put in a little slideshow explaining how cap-and-trade will “help curb greenhouse gas emissions”!
Australian Senate rejects Kevin Rudd’s climate plan
This is about as shameless as it gets. Come on defenders of the indefensible, stop the ankle biting and tired accusations of bigotry and racism and explain how this is not open bias and agenda-pushing from the BBC.
“Rudd’s great tax on everything is defeated”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudds_great_tax_on_everything_is_defeated/
Don’t expect Cameron to follow suit – he is still being breifed by the BBCs “climate experts” Harrabin et al.
Actually to be fair to Cameron – he cannot do much about it. Only democratic governments are rejecting this scam and as we all know yesterday Britain lost its democarcy. The politburo now sitting in Brussels and accountable to no one is calling all the shots.
The politicisation of science – Prof Lindzen
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16330