Richard Black is a willing conduit here for some furious back-peddling and spinning; that the IPCC totally false prediction that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt by 2035 was “only one mistake”. Oh yes? What about this?

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to SLIPPERY SLOPES…

  1. Abandon Ship! says:

    Black’s article finishes with:

    “But its overall conclusion that global warming is “unequivocal” remains beyond reproach, he said. ”

    Just in case there was any wavering……

    I imagine that in a few years there will be an inquiry into the ridiculously biased reporting about AGW etc by the BBC.


  2. D B says:

    From Black’s article:
    “The claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 appears to have originated in a 1999 interview with Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, published in New Scientist magazine.
    The figure then surfaced in a 2005 report by environmental group WWF – a report that is cited in the IPCC’s 2007 assessment, known as AR4.”

    Chief exec of WWF-UK in 2005 was Robert Napier, now chairman of the Met Office board.


  3. Chris Kaley says:

    Just listened to The Media Show on Radio 4, and was so incensed, I sent ’em this:

    “…Just listened in amazement to your piece on BBC bias in the realms of the Climate Change debate.
    After James Delingpole’s piece (which, oddly, wasn’t quite as forceful as I would have liked), you then bring on two climate change cheerleaders who, in one breath say the BBC isn’t biased, and in the next go on to say that climate change is happening after all, and the sceptics will be proved wrong.
    So far as I’m concerned, you’ve now shot yourselves in both feet.  I always thought you were biased, and your “reporting” one sided in favour of those who would scare us with tales of doom associated with climate change, now I’m totally convinced.  Is so OBVIOUS that the BBC is no longer an impartial news gathering and disseminating service, but an arm of the current socio-marxist government.
    Man-made climate change is an outrageous fabrication, carbon dioxide is a vital gas, and NOT the villain it’s made out to be and the real scientific debate is lost on you – all your programmes make the assumption that climate change is real and man’s fault, and practically all the “experts” you produce are all on board.
    Interview a few genuine sceptics for a change, if you want to convince me (and others) otherwise.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Good complaint.  It’s ridiculous to listen to that strident Beeboid woman get so defensive and twisting her words around from “no, we’re not biased” to “yes, our reporters are the best and already listen to the science, and Climate Change will eventually become a proven fact anyway.”

      In any case, they didn’t introduce Delingpole as a “conservative” or mention his connection to the Telegraph.  I guess the BBC really needs to work on standards in the area of informing the audience about the background of the talking heads they bring in.

      Having said that, I sse that Steve Hewlett is not only a Guardian columnist, but is a visiting Professor of Journalism and Broadcast policy at Salford University.  Considering that the BBC is moving something like 5000 jobs to Salford, would this include the in-house journalism school?  And are the majority of their professors Guardian columnists and their kind?


  4. Tom Donnelly says:

    This is hilarious journalism from Harrabin….


    • John Anderson says:

      That was glorious.  Its a pity Beck doesn’t know that Harrabin is no scientiast


  5. John Horne Tooke says:

    “only one mistake”? So the “Hockey Stick” is not an error?


  6. vincentshand says:

    This “mistake” was to quote (and then embellish) a non-peer reviewed report by WWF (a campaigning group), who quoted from a 6 year old short article in New Scientist, which was based on a phone conversation with a scientist who now claims he was mis-quoted. 
    The UN IPCC then embellished this report with the exact same language it uses to say that most 20th century warming was anthropogenic, and that in the 21st century global temperatures will rise by between 1.1 and 6 centigrade. This in a report that claims to have the highest standards from a consensus of the top scientists in the world.
    If the police failed to investigate properly a hate crime, reporters start digging. If the top-rated social services department fail to notice a toddler being tortured to death, reporters start digging. If there is a shred of evidence that a new wonder-drug was having serious side effects to one in a thousand patients they start digging (even if it has been riogorously tested)
    And those same reporters would interview people who say an independent inquiry is needed to make sure that the problem is not endemic and also quote people who say that tougher standards and more thorough scrutiny and controls are needed.They would also ask if people should be suspended whilst the truth is arrived at. Further, they would hang out to dry any “guilty” party who said no problem here, or was an isolated instance.
    But in the case of a report on which 192 nations are meant to base the biggest government project of all time (by an order of magnitude) is shown to have a serious methodological flaw, they are quick to accept the excuse that it was an isolated incident. Yet if even a part of the report is extreme in its recommendations, more people could die as a result of the treatment, then will die as a result of a large rise in global temperatures.