Richard Black asks ‘Why are virtually all climate “sceptics” men?‘ I don’t have time to give this the fisking it deserves but I’ll get the ball rolling by noting that the question occurred to him while reading the Guardian on a plane to Copenhagen.
[Hat tips to Rachel Miller (funny name for a climate sceptic) and Roland Deschain in the comments.]
Update. Also, feel free to add your own Richard Black-style questions. For example:
Why are virtually all BBC “journalists” left-wing?
Why are virtually all BBC “environment correspondents” arts graduates?
Why are virtually all “reports by Justin Rowlatt” such desperate pleas for attention?
Update. 17.35. A quick scan of the comments at Black’s blog suggests that the group fisk is already taking place over there. Don’t let that stop you here, though.
How does this prick know that? He never speaks to sceptics? Why not ask why are most lesbians fat and ugly?
And what’s with the flat-tops and bomber jackets??
martin i think you are watching the wrong movies
Why does pro-Obama BBC prefer anti-Bush American billionaire, George Soros, to American media billionaire Rupert Murdoch?
Why does the BBC believe that Gordon Brown can control the rise in global temperature, when he can’t control the rise in mass immigration into Britain?
“The question first came to mind on the plane to Copenhagen last week while scanning The Guardian’s feature on movers and shakers in the “sceptical” field.”
Why do biased environ-mental propagandists spend so much time polluting the planet flying en masse all round the globe reading The Guardian?
Of course, as noted elsewhere, The Guardian got its knickers in a twist when one of the BBC faithful interpreted events in ways other than those laid out in its pages. Not pretty, but funny.
Just saw the male teleprompter reader ‘interview’ the saviour of the planet in full waffle/’I’ mode, though.
He asked the PM about the public conviction around man’s role in climate change, and in his reply Mr. Brown flips it back to no doubt on generic global warming. Which indeed is hard to disagree is happening. Not where the debate, lies, Gordon. Why the Clintonian semantics, especially from a person trying to making saving the world all about him in every breath?
Also I’d have like to see developed the claim about his vast experience in matters of a ‘private carbon market’. Is this just a set up for shunting money around and taxes?
Oddly, the climate analyst Roger Harrabin just on did admit that this is controversial, so maybe the message is getting through that shunting dosh off any old where, any old how is not a panacea for resolving anything except the profits of a Lagos Mercedes dealer.
“apart from former US presidential candidate Sarah Palin who – as the Washington Post reveals – hasn’t always displayed climate scepticism in the past”
Why is it the BBC always dress to the left (or rather flop limply) and bring Sarah Palin into everything if they can do some damage whilst Saint Obama gets a free ride with his unpopular big government ways? Can’t be anything to do with the lefty BBC having somewhat of a hard on for Marxism?
Why indeed eh? So many questions about the BBC and so few answers fron the BBC.
Richard Black is a lying cheating fraudster, he doesnt report on the narrative he IS the narrative.
What Black really wanted to say was ‘whay are sceptics almost all white males’, obviously something made him leave out the race angle but the narrative just happens to fit perfectly with newlabours manic obsession with persecuting and smearing native white British males, in fact it could be that Black is already dreaming up a trash science report connecting the denialists/sceptics/heretics with white power racists.
The last refuge of the scoundrel that is Black will be smears and insults, trying to create in the mind of the viewer a scapegoat on whitch to pile the hatred and spite, now where have we seen that before? As the AAM fraud sinks expect the rats to get very nasty indeed.
He did manage to get in “always a man, almost invariably wearing a tweed jacket”. But then I’m the the kind of man who neither wears a tweed jacket and is firmly politically centralist, libertarian leaning so get pissed off with “connecting the denialists/sceptics/heretics with white power racists”. Anyway the BBC needs to be scrapped before it does any more harm to this country.
Why are virtually all eco-wacko’s on the public payroll?
Marky,
I was perplexed by the reference to Palin as well because when you actually read the article its about her taking the advice of “scientists” and making decisions on that advice. Its not abour her at all, but her acting as Governor of a state on the advice of so called “experts”.
Of course Im no longer surprised by the complete and utter lack of journalism shown by the BBC. Post number 33 seems to have hit th enail on the head. Of course Black will NEVER respond to the questions.
Regards
Mailman
“It’s a marked contrast to the world of mainstream climate science, which boasts a number of eminent female practitioners including IPCC lead authors Susan Solomon and Cynthia Rosenzweig”
Why is it that Richard Black has shut the seven holes in his head to sceptical scientists (not mainstream or eminent, naturally) be it male or female, instead writing puff pieces such as this. Why is it that Richard Black or BBC haven’t tried to report from Anthony Watts or Steve McIntyre preferring the Al Gore approach on inconvenient science?
its beautiful to see Dick Black the eco-twats’ blog full of people who’ve have had enough of his looney lefty views.
No wonder his hair is falling out.
An excellent letter well worth reading re: IPCC buried in the Richard Black BBC thread: http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
Cheers Ryan, interesting.
Well my wife is a sceptic and she is definitely a female. What a thing to write by a so-called journalist. The wheels have come off their fantasy at Hoaxenhagen so they have to resort to smears. Im so glad that he appears to be getting a kicking. Wonder when the comments will be off?
“I’ve been debating the science with them for years, but recently I realised we shouldn’t be talking about the science but about something unpleasant that happened in their childhood”
Why is it the Richard Black thinks it is impartial to be using selective quotations (the BBC do this a lot in reports) alluding to the premise that all ‘sceptics’ have mental problems to back up his own position against climate scepticism? Why is it Richard Black hasn’t got the balls to state this theory himself and why is it that we should have to pay for this crap?
Why are virtually all Guardian “readers” handwringing pussies?
Why do lots of beeboids take drugs?
Another man – bastard.
Why is it that the BBC manages to turn me from meek to angry of Mayfair? Well not Mayfair but angry. I need a drink. BTW Why is it that those sceptical of the man-made global warming science, christians, right wingers, libertarians, little englanders, tories, against-multiculturalism, against islamification, against big government, anti-EU etc, etc should pay the licence fee?
Richard Blacks piece is pure propaganda. Its called “name calling”.
Lucia from Lucia blackboard is a woman, but are there any women on the hockey team. I thought so.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/
Remember this is the same Richard Black which was seen as an ally in the bbc by the hockey team.
Notice too, that Nick Griffins name is there – “guilty by association” perhaps. Now why not mention Richard Linzen or Proffesor Stott or the many scientists who do not take the BBCs propaganda view of the world.
I doubt very much that they were refered to as allies. Show me the e-mails with Prof. Linzen and Stot and I wil show you the e-mail which mentions Richard Black and the context.
At least we can agree on the BBCs propaganda view of the world.
Indeed Black does not make that point. But why lump Nick Griffin in with others? This is gulit by association.
“”The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.”
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
In my mind Griffins’ name does not spring readily to mind when naming “climate change sceptics”
Black is supposed to report on climate science, yet his knowledge of the leading scientific “sceptics” does not run steadily from his pen. Instead he pigeon-holes a lot of people togther (including Palin) and includes Griffin. It looks very much like smear tactics to me.
As Abandon Ship! Mentioned about psychologically ‘ incentivising’ people.
BBC World Service Health check:
“Can psychology save the planet? Facts alone are failing as awareness of climate change does not mean action to reduce emissions. Can psychologists change that?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/healthc
Personally although I despise Nick Griffin I can agree with him sometimes. I’m not sure how effective guilt by association is.
Had to laugh at the BBC showing a sound bite of Arnie going on about spending money now to prevent climate change. The BBC COULD have pointed out that California is totally and completely bankrupt, even sending public workers home without pay. So where is Arnie going ot get the money from? His movie sales?
Then we have the human joke that is Mince Charles. A man who’s Carbon footprint is bigger than most of the UK population combined. Not that the BBC bothers to point THAT out now (it used to)
“That paints a picture of the “dismissive” – and dominantly male – psychology, without however going to the roots of why men and women diverge so much on their tendency to be “dismissive”. ”
Many at the BBC and its lefty acolytes have over the years followed and unquestionably supported anything that would destroy British or Western society as they saw it. In psychology terms, they hate mother and father like oikophobic petulant teenagers but rather than move out seek to destroy the family from within.
AGW – Big Unaccountable Government, Anti-Democracy. Tick
EU – Big Unaccountable Government, Anti-Democracy. Tick
Islam – Anti-Christian, Anti-Democracy, Anti-Western society. Tick
Multiculturalism – Anti-Western society. Tick
The BBC is anti-British.
I no longer have a tweed jacket, but secretly think I could still pull it off. Having said that, I say this is just classic neo-Marxist/Feminist bias. Of course Black’s description of the typical skeptic is just the BBC/Right-On Dictionary definition of a white, Christian conservative. It’s also offensively innacurate when Black labels these people – in which, as a so-called “climate skeptic”, I am included, thus making this the second time a Beeboid has insulted me by association – as “anti-egalitarian”.
He’s using “egalitarian” in the Harrison Bergeron sense, of course. It’s the kind of insanity on evidence in your state schools which don’t encourage gifted students because they don’t want to promote elitism. So really, Black gives himself away as a Pol Pot-style Marxist. But we’re all supposed to pretend that he means “equal opportunity”. Which makes this an insult to those of us who genuinely do believe in the ideal of equal opportunity for all. It’s the way that’s achieved that’s the difference.
In reality, the people he’s condemning tend to favor a meritocratic approach, and celebrate achievement, and are anti-dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Black wants to punish achievement, which is why he thinks himself pro-egalitarian. In any case, he wants to demonize those who disagree with him. And who better than the white male conservative?
Naturally, the one female exception to the rule he finds is Sarah Palin, who has already achieved an almost Thatcheresque level of Beeboid knicker-twisting power in such a short time. And after all, we can dismiss her opinion on this important matter as Justin Webb told us ages ago that she denies science. Sarah Palin in this context is like the dinner bell to Pavlov’s dogs, and no defender of the indefensible can deny it.
Black couldn’t make his personal political biases more obvious.
I suppose the real question is whay does the BBC fail to investigate stories that might damage the consensus and contradict the narrative?
What is it that somehow stops the BBC from using its massive resources to actually research a story and find out even the most basic facts pertaining to that story?
It seems the BBC have stopped investigating and have started to merely hand down press releases and propaganda from its allies, the stunning inability to ask simple questions or confront obvious and blatant lies is very revealing.
Last evening there was a civilised and sensible debate “The Environment Debate” with Watson, Lindzen and Lomberg.
To be fair, the program was well balanced and Watson was asked some challenging qyuestions which he didn’t answer well.
IMHO, the sceptical view was far more credible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pft7c/The_Environment_Debate/
The fanatical BBC climate camp reports that there are ‘hundreds’ of fanatical climate camp followers on a march in Copoenhagen – this is the BBC’s lead story on its Front Page!:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8415307.stm
A non-BBC report on Copenhagen:
“They’ve been had!”
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/theyve-been-had.html
I have been saying for quite a while that the ecomentalist eco fanatic rent a mob green watermellon rabble were being played and used as a prop to make it appear as thought there was a popular grassroots movement for change and the useful idiots like GP/FoE/WWF played along and banked the cheques.
I predicted they would be cast aside like a soiled disposable nappy when the real string pullers got what they wanted, its all about power and money and the interplay between the holders of each.
A good scientist by definition should have a sceptical mind. Those who believe in what they are told, without questioning the premises, the provenance of the data etc, are just gullible.
Therefore the dividing line is between AGW believers ie the gullible, and scientists.
Beeboid moonbat Dick Black the eco-twat has now changed his sexist leftist article from “why are vertually all climate sceptics men” to “climate scepticism and questions about sex”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
keep up the bad work Dicky Boy
At the risk of being sexist, are women more gullible than men ?