On the web, it’s everywhere. The Russian Institute of Economic Analysis yesterday released a report suggesting that the ‘climate change’ mob at East Anglia’s CRU deliberately and massively rigged Russian climate records, ignoring stations covering 40% of the landmass and choosing only those sites which showed evidence of warming. On the BBC, it’s nowhere. Step by step, the ‘climate change’ scam is disintegrating. But you won’t hear about it on the BBC.
CRU "FALSIFIED RUSSIA RECORDS"
Bookmark the permalink.
Yet again I posted this on the earlier thread and it pops up, I really should hang on before I post.
The BBC have a set reaction that does not vary when its treasured narrative is challenged, they will ignore this for as long as possible hoping the story will go away if the story runs they wait in silence while their grubby gang of science and environment reporters rig up a cover story with the very people involved in the fraud, only when they think that a cover story has been cooked up will they report on the story.
This set routine never varies and instead of actually investigating and asking awkward questions they simply confer with the fraudsters and soak up the bullshit offered in defence, then fully bullsitted up they peddle that bullshit to the viewers dressed up as actual reporting.
Imagine asking only the fraudster involved if there is any truth to the allegations and then simply accepting their word for it?
Black/Harrabin/Shukman are not just sympathetic to the fraudsters I now believe they are actually deeply involved with the fraudsters as co conspiritors and working colleagues.
The massive amount of free uncritical airtime and coverage given over to these fraudsters can only mean that they are in fact a single entity working together.
The BBC must have spent many millions peddling trash science reports based mainly if not wholly on fraudulant data, now the real question is, did they realise the data and temperature series was in fact forged? The holy grail will to find a definate link between the fraudsters and BBC HQ.
I’ve suggested here before that we really need one comment thread for “Climategate” (although perhaps it isn’t techically possible). The speed with which new information comes to light means frequent posts and it’s difficult to keep up with comments spread over myriad posts.
Roland: I’ve always found large threads on blogs to not really much good for keeping everything in one place. The Biased BBC forum would I think would be a better place I guess.
cassandra
You have nailed the BBC “reporters” exactly. They are part of the scam, not innocent observers.
There is not a single BBC journalist – out of 1000 – reporting properly as ClimateGate unfolds.
Oooh dear me, the Hadley centre for climate fraud has been cuaght in an obvious lie as it tries to cover its cooking the books fraud!
The Daily Express is the only MSM to be dealing with the story at present, the chief liar at the Hadley fraud’N’lies centre tried to blame the WMO for the its own trickery in carefully selecting cherry picked stations in Russia in order to show a warming trend, an outright lie to cover up a fraud? Oooops and double ooooops!
So to recap we have the met office Hadley centre/UEA CRU/GISS all now fighting a rising tide of allegations of misconduct and fraud and fakey and manipulation and bad practice more akin to a banana republic.
Of course the BBC are fighting tooth and claw to get at the truth, asking difficult questions and sending regiments of highly trained ninja journalists to scoop the story of the century…er well no, they are even now too busy covering the Copenhagen festival of lies itself using rigged and faked evidence based on the faked up temperature series. Once the festival of lies is finished I suspect the beeboids will go for a well earned crimbo break in the sun unabe to cover the scandal for some strange reason or other!
Meanwhile the government’s chief scientific adviser writes to the Express crying foul for this debate even being allowed, as “livelihoods are at risk”, and we all know which livelihoods he means.
Climate Change Lies
THE Met Office was last night facing accusations it cherry-picked climate change figures in a bid to increase evidence of global warming.
UK climatologists “probably tampered with Russian-climate data” to produce a report submitted to world leaders at this week’s Copenhagen summit, it is claimed.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146517
Anyone notice the toady show forget to mention the daily Express front page in its usual look at what the newspapers are writing about? Obviously the Express with only three times the circulation of the guardian isnt really worth mentioning is it? The difference between the very poorly read guardian and the far more read Express is that one is fully beeboid leftist friendly and on message and one isnt.
I wonder if any of the BBC newspaper reviews will reveal the Express headline?
This happened on the BBC News 24 paper review as well.
Meanwhile, back in the news (there’s a funny link in the comments to our dear leader going where he’s told and taking others with him…ironic… If it was Bush it would be main lead on BBC now)…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100020159/copenhagen-climate-conference-gordon-brown-says-co2-makes-god-change-the-weather/comment-page-1/#comment-100108379
Maybe he gets his science settled in the same place Milibands E. & D. make their dioramas to try and scare Nordic ministers with alligators in Gothenburg high street:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pfk53/Newsnight_16_12_2009/
It has certainly convinced many who saw it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2009/12/wednesday_16_december_2009_in.html#commentsanchor
and meanwhile, over at Monbiot’s harem, the accolites are in a sombre and defeatist frame of mind. Just read their downbeat views today!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/16/copenhagen-deal-barack-obama-speech?showallcomments=true#comment-51
Oh dear, dear dear! Poor George. It’s all but over.
😀
Have the BBC been reporting about the chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri? If not, why not?
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/lord-monckton-reports-on-pachauris-eye-opening-copenhagen-presentation/
There really is no point reading or watching the BBC ‘news’ anymore.
Where are the defenders of the indefensible on this one? Have they given up entirely? Is there no one willing to defend the BBC by saying that the official national broadcaster is doing a fine job, and explain why the BBC shouldn’t be informing the public about the data being fudged and the “consensus” rigged?
If there are any lurking BBC employees, you ought to be ashamed of your colleagues. Seriously ashamed.
The BBC do show Brown leading Gore into the broom cupboard, but only because it enables them to link to not one but two old BBC Bush favorites.
http://order-order.com/2009/12/17/copenhagen-gordon-leads-gore-into-broom-cupboard/
That was a quick blow job, still with Gordon’s roving jaw…
Mandy will be upset.
What a Pocock.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm
When will the BBC explain the extremely complex global interactions between Co2, oxygen, plant life, animal life, oceans, clouds, water vapour, sun etc etc etc?
“simple experiment” indeed and worthless.
Be fair. The Russians, as a major oil and gas producer, do have an interest in muddying the waters.
I’m not saying the story is untrue, merely that anything coming out of Russia needs to be examined in the light of Russian national interest as perceived by Putin & co.
Yes but everyone seems to have interests one way or the other, not just Russians or sceptics, the BBC are favouring one side without much examination of the propoganda they recieve.
As for the Russians and the CRU “Again the accusation is completely believable, yet is completely unverifiable because CRU has refused to release the data.”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/russian-iea-claims-cru-tampered-with-climate-data-cherrypicked-warmest-stations/
Surely whether the CRU tampered with Russian data can be determined as a matter of fact. If the CRU refuses to release the data supplied from the Russian stations and allow comparison with that used in their reports, then it looks highly suspicious.
Gavin Hewitt stumps for wealth redistribution on his blog:
Climate change and big figures
Hillary Clinton, knowing full well that the President was going to make an empty suit appearance at the Cophenhagen summit, has said that the US will back a $100 billion transfer of wealth to certain Third World countries.
Hewitt approves, and peddles myths.
What the big figures represent is guilt and recognition that for decades the rich world has been harming and warming the planet. They may be fuzzy figures, but they may just have persuaded the developing world that the West will carry the burden for cleaning up the planet.
Hewitt is rightly skeptical of where this money will come from, and how it will be spent. But his criticism and skepticism comes from the Left, and from the position that the US and a few lesser Western countries have done more damage to the environment than everyone else, including China, Russia, and India. He is clearly stating as a given that this transfer of wealth is justified and necessary, and is merely concerned about the logistics.
Come see the bias inherent in the system.