The BBC is still giving massive prominence to those who, against all the evidence, dismiss Climategate as inconsequential. Have they not read this, which shows that the CRU records were based on the crudest of computer programmes? Meanwhile, as our economy collapses, the jerk Ed Miliband is conspiring to give away billions of our money in the Copenhagen Treaty, not just this year, but forever. Our leaders are about to commit to the largest blank cheque in history, as well as to send us back to the dark ages. What have we told about this by the BBC in all its hot air about AGW? Nothing.
Update: Steven Mitchell, the BBC’s deputy director of news, told Ray Snoddy on the BBC’s Newswatch programme this morning that the BBC has not made a collective decision about the science of ‘climate change’. Minutes later, Richard Black, his environment correspondent, said on the same programme that the way the BBC covered said ‘climate change’ was dictated by the BBC Trustees (he was referring here, I think, to the improbably named ‘From See-saw to Wagon Wheel’), which categorically ruled that the science that proved AGW was “overwhelming”. So put a different way, the man who dictates most aspects of the BBC’s news coverage has not got a clue how his correspondents operate.
Meanwhile, back on Newswatch, Richard Black continued to argue that black was white, by claiming that it is an “urban myth” that the BBC’s coverage of ‘climate’ change’ has been one-sided. If it wasn’t all so serious, you’d have to laugh. The killer fact to emerge (from a disgruntled viewer who was a studio guest) was that one week after the CRU scandal broke, the BBC website search engine found just four mentions of the word Climategate.
(Thanks to several Biased BBC readers for spotting the Newswatch exchange. You can see it here)
Good concise summary.
If the BBC does refer to this issue, it is in terms of ‘choices’ that only refer to scary extremes.
With the likes of Miliband I keep trying to nail down what this clown seems to have in mind in detail, beyond running around in circles screaming ‘IT is coming. Give me all your money and I will solve IT’. What? How? How much? Etc, etc. And not being helped much by the BBC.
We didn’t buy it when he tried it on at the Science Museum, and the more shrill he, and his boss (and supporters) get in their denial (yes, I use this term much as I find it as pejorative as it was/is inaccurate to describe those with questions on the total commitment to the AGW dogma), the more concerned I get.
There seems to be a view by those in power (currently), that the public is ‘wrong’, and that this is nothing to do with either their message or their competence in sharing it. That’s deluded enough. But then there are dark mutterings that ‘they’ need to ‘deal’ with any who seem unimpressed with their plans and demands for total fealty to the cause.
That, for me, is the big issue now.
And while the CRU data is a major aspect of assessing decisions and expenditures proposed to ‘mitigate’, it is but a small aspect of the totality.
As for the BBC’s role, having watched Newswatch just now, starring an unsurprisingly defensive Richard Black (does any BBC type hauled on say anything but ‘no, I don’t think so’?), it was rather typified by some senior bod who followed a bunch of waffle on how they had to make sure of stuff (when this does not seem a constraint in areas they feel conform to the corprorate narrative) before running with it and, bless, was ‘happy’ to sy that they screwed up.
Oh, that’s OK then. You screwed up (still doing so). You’re happy. Evidently still not very professionally concerned. Moving on….
Meanwhile, that lightweight Miliband is heading off to a meeting of mediocre minds to see how to push some money around in the name of green that I, for one, remain unclear and unsure is going to do a darn thing to help my kids’ to a better environmental future.
No thanks to a uniquely funded media tool of big government that I have no option but to co-fund.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/video_and_audio/8396579.stm
Dept. Director of News Steve Mitchell:
‘I am happy to say that… with hindsight… we probably should have featured it, earlier, more prominently.’
Echo, like you I’ve just watched Saturday’s Newswatch with Richard Black. When backed into a corner to justify the lack of BBC impartiality, he fell back on the explanation that the BBC Trust had ruled that that the BBC should accept the IPCC orthodoxy, and the BBC would publicise adverse voices only in this context.
The implication that the BBC Trust should take such a line on a specific editorial issue is extremely disturbing, and suggests that the Trust itself should be subject to proper scrutiny. If the Trust is meant to be the highest independent appeal forum for issues relating to the BBC, it should not be getting involved in potentially contentious campaigning issues.
Has anyone heard whether the BBC has mentioned that the code for the hockey stick etc is completely false? All I have heard them mention is the emails.
Correct assertion, the BBC are trying to limit the debate reference to just the emails because its obvious that while damaging they can be explained away albeit with difficulty HOWEVER the most damning parts of the data bundle is the computer codes and the Harry readme file containing evidence that cannot be explained away and which show the perversion and corruption of the ‘hadcrut’ temperature series which in turn is used by the met office which in turn is used by the IPCC etc. BTW GIStemp almost certainly has the same flaws in its source code which is why they are refusing to release it.
The delay in the BBC reaction was in fact to concoct a defence and the only viable one was to admit the lesser charges and hope that by ignoring the far more serious fraud the issue would die away into a he said she said six of and half a dozen of the other arguments.
Not only has al beeb completely ignored hockey stick 1 being utterly discredited by McIntyre, but a week or so ago they ran a story about hockey stick two and how it proved hockey stick one was right.
Of course they only included comments from Mann and nothing at all to counter him. I sent an email to Black asking why he hadnt bothered to get in touch with the one person who destroyed hockey stick one…which of course I never received a reply to.
Mailman
“BBC Academy appoints first Head of Editorial Standards”
‘Now I don’t really have to remind you, but for newcomers:
‘1.) climate science is settled;
‘2.) there is no such thing as Islamic jihad, only ‘militants’;
‘3.) mass immigration is desirable, opponents of it are racist;
‘4.) the E.U. is a wonderfully democratic state;
‘5.) Obama is always right;
‘6.) vote Labour’.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/12_december/04/editorial.shtml
‘7.) Israel is evil’.
Iraq and Afghanistan are reruns of Vietnam. We must pull our troops out now, there is no chance of winning.
All excellent posts above !
Surely if the BBC’s heroes at the UN are investigating climategate, it must be important.
Yet another example of the self-contradictary positions which the BBC takes on so many issues.
The Beeboids’ worldview amounts to a collective, institutional mental illness.
“Forget climate change – save the planet from the thermomaniacs” (Simon Heffer)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/6729062/Forget-climate-change—save-the-planet-from-the-thermomaniacs.html
Pssst….. Have you heard? A BBC crew while out in South Africa to cover the effect the World Cup will have on South Africa were robbed? Of course they shrug it off like normal saying it happens everywhere. Andrew Ball the producer has said that it’s even happened in London and Liverpool.
That’s our licence fees being wasted, firstly to send journalists to SA on a non story, and secondly if Mr Ball is to be believed it’s the third (maybe even more) time our licence fees have been used to replace equipment.
Strangely the BBC as of now have still not had a report about this latest robbery on their site. Cover up?
Surely if a person has been careless with the equipment on not one but 3 separate occassions that it’s been stolen, the powers that be should seriously consider the employees suitability to be a producer? Especially since it’s not their money?
Any how. Here’s a link to the story on my blog: http://capepartyuk.blogspot.com
Why are people surprised by the way the BBC has handled this story? The BBC always promotes the Government agenda and it’s own political views, when Climategate broke the BBC wanted the story to simply go away, it was an “inconvenient Truth” and the BBC just wanted to kill it.
Even this morning I’ve just seen three climate change stories on the BBC news 24 channel (including some demonstration by what appears to be fat lesbians) yet Climategate got one line from fat female beeboid.
Richard Black to me looked like he really didn’t want to be there and appeared rather pissed off.
Interesting that Susan Watts off Newsnight I believe DOES have a science background and she probably sees how corrupt the way the leftists, fellow beeboids and so called climate scientists have acted.
Black claimed that the CRU was only one institute, well yes, but do the others use the same data and the same computer models? Many of those people are of the same political leaning.
Last night on radio 5 Charlie Wolf was pilloried for being a denier with some shrill female beeboid literally shouting him down when he dared to oppose the BBC view about climate change.
“I’ve seen pictures of glaciers melting” literally screamed female. Wow I never knew that glaciers might actually melt from time to time.
Another arts graduate with no idea of science.
The climategate scandal has certainly caused some hitherto unknown movers and shakers to crawl out of the woodwork and what foam flecked whack jobs they are eh?
Like cultists on the back foot, the rage and blind hatred shines on through.
I’d quite like to listen to the Charlie Wolf segment – which programme was that on?
Lloyd
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0070jd4
(if you don’t mind listening to mad women)
Segment starts about 2h35m in.
This is entertatining reading.. the text from the emails … http://www.eastangliaemails.com/
Just had quick look .. here’s some gems I found..
“As always I seem to have been away bullshiting and politiking in
various meetings for weeks!” – Keith Briffa from the CRU, http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=15&filename=846715553.txt
“Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness” – Prof. Graham Haughton, University of Hull, http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1065&filename=1256765544.txt
“I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!”
“I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.” – Phil Jones, CRU, http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=952&filename=1231350711.txt
“Trust had ruled that that the BBC should accept the IPCC orthodoxy“
So what does this mean for reporting? If “The Trust” are telling them how to report things and what angle to take how can they be un-biased? How can they possibly report changing events?
Earlier today I emailed Robin some stuff to include in a possible further update to this blog post (I’m trying not to create too many blog posts on indentical topics). Some of it dealt with the question of the Trust’s guidelines. If Robin doesn’t want to use it (it was rather lenghty – included transcripts from Newswatch) I’ll post it separately later.
Just watched the climate march.
Seems good natured, and a bunch of folk who care enough about the future to express their fears, and hopes. Great.
There are things to be concerned about, most of which I share, and all have a right to express their views.
Speaking of which, we then cut to one Miliband. E, who would seem to think Senator McCarthy had a point… what’s with the ‘saboteurs!’ strategy? ‘Are you having, or have you ever had the slightest notion that some of this doesn’t quite settle up as we say the science does?’
Senior pols rushing about looking for ‘deniers’ under the bed and rabble rousing against any who are not ‘with the program’ is not a healthy political direction to take, IMHO.
I wonder if any in the BBC might pause to ponder how letting concerns over perceived threats fester and swell can often lead to even greater threats arising from within?
For BBC’s environmental lobby:
“MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: A change for good in the climate debate”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1233486/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-A-change-good-climate-debate.html#ixzz0YrVXF6MQ
Any Beeboid who says that there was no decision at the BBC about which side they’re on in this story is a freaking liar. I will say that without fear of being accused of defamation. Surely we can’t have forgotton this already:
BBC’s Hypocritical Analysis of its Own Global Warming Coverage.
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.
This is from 2007!