Monthly Archives: December 2009

The BBC positively ejaculates at the thought of “climate change” demonstrations. You can tell by the reverential tone in which it reports the sorry sight of government ministers, the primate of England and sundry law-breaking thugs telling us that we must spend billions on doing a King Canute.

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)

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.