You’ve got to laugh. Or cry. For two weeks, the internet has been smoking hot with thousands of reports about Climategate and its implications. EU Referendum has a very interesting post this morning showing that, according to an ingenious new method of measuring interest in a particular topic, the public are very interested, too.
What about the BBC? Well, of course, they have virtually ignored it, preferring to concentrate instead on putting their £750m news resources into reporting subjects they like, such as the embarrassment of Tiger Woods and whether we should withdraw from Afghanistan. It’s only when their revered UN weighs in with a promised inquiry – that will no doubt be as much of a whitewash and a charade as everything else the UN does – that the BBC deigns to elevate the matter to lead item. Written, of course, from the UN’s perspective.
Proving yet again, that where the UN leads, the BBC slavishly follows.
Update: the discussion at 8.10am on Today, featuring green fanatic Jonathan Porritt and – miracle of miracles – a “sceptic”, Philip Stott, was an indication of how far on the ropes the warmists are. Porritt admitted through gritted teeth that there was something to investigate in Climategate (though of course still maintaining that “most scientists” say there is a consensus), while Stott skifully painted the picture of why there are major doubts about the causation of warming, and that taxation of CO2 would not in any case solve the problem.
But, and there was a big but, John Humphrys still accepted far too easily that “glaciers melting” was a definite sign that catastrophe was upon us. Who briefs these people? Laughable.
Climategate being discussed now on Radio 4 at 7:07
sounds like UN on damage limitation with its investigation
This is what happens when a news organisation is peopled by advocates not journalists. Whatever else he may or may not be, you can’t call Harrabin or Black journalists. Rather, they have sat on the story for weeks rather than report it. BBC News should be expecting their resignations on the desks by the end of the day.
They’ve been unable to sit on it any longer, to the extent that it made the prestigious spot after the 8:00 am news on Today this morning. I have however noticed that the subject, when mentioned, always keeps to the subject of the e-mails. From what I can gather (not being an expert) the real smoking gun may be the computer code behind the climate models and they are still keeping very quiet over that.
“…always keeps to the subject of the e-mails” There is a good reason for this, the BBC do not understand the science. They are trying to make out that the emails are just attacks on “sceptics” but the science is still “settled” The code I have seen points to data mainpulation and that does not look good for their heroes at CRU. Harrabin, Black and their friend Porrit cannot argue over this with someone who is mathamatically literate.
Why the UN ? What has it got to do with them ?
Grant
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by the UN in 1988. It is their baby and it is used to channel funds from the 1st world to the 3rd.
The CRU reports to the IPCC, and by default to the UN.
The CRU is also funded by Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) a government agency which receives an annual budget of 400 million pounds.
The UN, the IPCC, the NERC and the government all believe in global warming and all believe the wealth of the West to be based on inequality.
Global warming is used to promote Social Justice, hence the importance of the UN in all of this squalid wealth distribution disguised as climate change.
“..government all believe in global warming and all believe the wealth of the West to be based on inequality. “
I think they beleive in the latter but not the former. The new “Red” is “Green”.
It will be a whitewash in the sense that staff in the CRU will take the hit, but then the spin will be that we’ve got rid of the bad guys, but the rest of the data is fine, which it isn’t.
They should investigate all the teams and make all the data available. But they won’t. Another whitewash it will be.
If they are SO confident of their data then put it outr there along with HOW they made their calculations and say to the sceptics, “prove us wrong” That’s HOW real science works.
Did not hear the 8.10 spot on Today today but did hear the early item. My attention being alerted that about two weeks after “Climategate” broke here it was at last on Today and the BBC often is in the lead on “breaking” news when it suits their agenda. In discussing the matter all that was mentioned was the attempt by the CRU to prevent a couple of “anti”papers appearing in the next IPCC paper.
Absolutely NOTHING about sexing up the figures. Can you think of another subject dear to the BBC’s heart where any “sexing up” found will receive chapter and verse.
The BBC’s english graduate climate expert’s disdain with regard to the suggestion yesterday that a much better return on climate change expenditure could be made by reducing world population growth was only to be expected along with his tee hee regarding U. S. and third world populations.
However compound population growth coupled with rising standard of living expectations of second and third world populations must produce a considerable effect over time. First world “indigenous” population growth is already approaching no growth, but then what would an english graduate know about population growth. Come to think of it he has become an “expert” in another area of science, so anything is possible!
Stott is far too nice (which, maybe, is the reason he is the BBC’s sceptic of choice). He was entirely reasonable and largely restricted his comments to how the scientific process should work rather than launch a wholesale attack on the CRU’s suborning of science aided by organisations like the BBC. He could have mentioned, for instance, that Black – who was given first crack in the Today segment – was mentioned in the emails as someone who could stop the BBC’s minuscule AGW sceptic coverage. Porritt (or should that be Parrot) kept on about how “all” climate scientists “agree” until brought up short by Stott. Stott also made the killer point from the genuinely scientific point of view: that no one knows what the effect of the rush to reduce CO2 output will be on the climate, let alone anything else out there. CO2 is a tiny part of the totality of greenhouse gases and “climate” is an incredibly complex process. For that reason, Stott concluded, we should concentrate on amelioration not prevention.
The upending of a scientific/political pyramid on the work of 40-50 “climate scientists” (per the Wegman Report to Congress) all of whom appear to have been complicit in shutting down debate is very dangerous territory for the warmists to contemplate. Certainly, this group’s leaders (eg Hansen and Mann) have massaged or – to put it kindly – misinterpreted the data which they have “analysed”. Meanwhile, despite the occasional discussion (with Humphrys, of course, interrupting while letting Parrot expound unchallenged and introducing the segment by referring to “stolen” emails), the BBC’s general output continues in panic-inducing mode. Witness, for instance, the total bollocks on BBC News at 10.00 last night blaming “climate change” for the switching of salt transport in the Sahara from slow, inefficient (and very picturesque) camel caravan to rapid, efficient trucks; and this crapola from Nepal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8394452.stm
We all know how committed the B-BBC is to the whole MMGW fairy story. However today I think they’ve taken it to a whole new level.
For some time I’ve been a contributer to the BBC “Have Your Say” site and suffered the usual censorship(or “Awaiting Moderation” delays) to make sure not much gets through that doesnt meet the BBC prejudices. To make a point I set my town to “Why has global temperature not risen since 1997?”. This was done a long time ago and predates the current “ClimateGate” storm, until now this has caused no problems. Many other contributers have non-geographic entries on their posts.
This morning I have just received a mail from the BBC as follows:
Hello,
Thank you for your contributions to Have Your Say. We have noticed the town that you have entered on your JohnRSmith membership – “Why has global temperature not risen since 1997?” – and are writing to ask you to change it.
If you would like to contribute to any future debates, we would ask that you change the town to either your actual town of residence or leave it empty if you would prefer. We have temporarily banned your account, but if you reply back to this email to confirm that you have changed your town to something more appropriate, we will reinstate it.
Regards
The BBC Have Your Say team
I have to say that I am astonished at the blatant censorship being demonstrated here. I will have to comply with their demand as I wish to carry on making points on their site. We are all aware that the B-BBC has swallowed the MMGW story hook, line and sinker, but to force the public to follow suit would seem way beyond their remit.
That is hilarious. You can leave the field blank, so they don’t actually care if they get that info. But don’t put in anything they don’t like.
Contrast the BBC’s decision to remain in the vanguard of AGW “truthing”, with this editorial from Canada’s CBC – hitherto a stalwart of the warmist propaganda network
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/you-wouldnt-accept-that-at-a-grade-9-science-fair-cbc-finds-a-moment-of-clarity/
as posted at WUWT
I too had missed the 8.10am main-feature slot on Today this morning – but have now played it.
It is a CORKER !!!
Sure, Humphrys and the BBC generally are babbling on about glaciers melting (eg Nepal). But in his intro Humphreys made it very clear that Climate is very serious, academically for the world of science, and also politically. Porritt trotted out his normal points – but I felt that Stott, in an understated way, was really strong.
Especially on the inverted pyramid point – the fact that virtually all the IPCC stuff pivots on a small number of seminal studues and scientists. Nam,ely – ALL THE USUAL SUSPECTS – Hansen, Michael Mann, Hill and Briffa at the CRU. A circle-jerk if ever there was one.
……
So, 2 weeks after ClimateGate broke, there are some real advances – the BBC cannot completely smother the story any more, indeed it is now top news. Secondly, the BBC’s environmental reporters are not getting their own way, they can wriggle all they like but other BBC staff are now focussed on this, and may not all be so gullible. And thirdly, even John Humphrys sounds pretty quizzical on all this – swallowing some of the stuff, but also willing to challenge the idea of “total consensus”.
So, AGW will not get the free ride it has had so far at the BBC. I don’t think Black and Harrabin can cap the debate.
And I see that the 1pm news is also leading on ClimateGate – with the sceptical Swedish Prof.as their guest.
……..
It is all beginning to look like Hunpty Dumpty. Black and Harrabin can’t put it back together again. Even if the CRU review turns out to be a whitewash – it will be labelled as a whitewash, or incomplete. The damage is done, the wheels are coming off the AGW wagon.
Are the BBC covering events in OZ…
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2427947.ece/Australia_finds_itself_in_a_fix_over_climate_change
This is whay the BBC concentrate on the emails:
“First, let’s get this out of the way: Emails prove nothing. Sure, you can look like an unethical asshole who may have committed a felony using government funded money; but all email is, is talk, and talk is cheap.”
BUT:
“Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data.”
Read the rest here.
http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/
Can you imagine if the BBC had experts on who could untagle this code. Could they disagree? Probably not. Instead they concentrate on the emails – then the science can still be “settled” but the “scientists” only blackend peoples names. Copenhagen can still be a success and after the treaty is signed there will be no going back. Politicians will not then be in a postion to question something that they have invested billions of tax payers money into without looking like crooks. The government and oppostion can’t even mention the possibility of wrong doing now – what chance after they have squandered billions on a white elephant?
The fun is only just beginning. Now that computer geeks across the UK / USA have at last got their clammy hands on this code. This is where the ticking bomb really lies.