Today, it seems that the false ‘consensus’ around global warming is melting at a faster rate than ever before. Richard North has shown that the head of the IPCC solicited EU grants to research Himalayan glacier melt even though the claims of that melt were totally bogus; David Rose on the Mail on Sunday has evidence that the IPCC deliberately inflated melting ice theories to make the world pay attention; and the Sunday Times has further evidence that other parts of the 2007 IPCC report also deliberately falsified the records about alleged increases in the damage caused by hurricanes. It adds up to an avalanche of fraud that is building up momentum daily – for the first time the MSM is following what blogs have been saying for years.
So where is the BBC on all this? Not very far, to put it mildly. There’s virtually nothing on the BBC website that reflects the turmoil. Harrabin posted on Friday a pessimistic blog containing the old warmist lie that the lobbying firepower from oil corporations was the reason why ‘climate change’ legislation has not been passed; and Richard Black, though admitting that the ‘climate change’ suicide rush to enact globally-binding targets has faltered, still refuses to to discuss or even properly mention the catalogue of lies and distortions that are now being exposed. It’s BBC cloud cuckoo land, as usual.
Update: the blogsphere has been buzzing all day with new revelations about Pachauri and his henchmen. Even warmist journalists such as Charles Clover and Geoffrey Lean are calling for Pachauri’s resignation. On the BBC, with its £700m-a-year news budget – zip.
Maybe they’re just waiting to prepare their defence like they did with ‘Climategate’. And then they can put all of their weight behind smearing the Mail on Sunday or US Republicans or white people or whatever said defence looks like. Why, they’re probably having an emergency meeting right now at some luxury spa over a Champagne brunch, nipping off to the bogs to do some chop, and figure out a way of saving face over this thing.
Vile Rod Liddle was on Radio 5 with ugly Silverton this morning. Silverton asked Lidlde if he was a “climate change denier”.
Silverton suggested that those who oppose the view of man made climate change are “small in number and get too much time”. Really Kate, when was the last time you interviewed anyone who had a science background and opposed the myth of man made climate change?
Not a mention on the BBC of all the scandal going on about the lies around the IPCC, the Met office and the crappy Polytechnic in 6 finger land.
Even the label Climate Change Denier is designed to diminish the credibility of sceptics. Has anyone met someone who denies climate changes naturally and has always changed?
Currently the term ‘denier’ is almost exclusively linked with Holocaust denial – still considered a bad thing by most thinking people. even the BBC, if an Arab doesn’t do it. It is one thing to deny a documented event has occurred in the past and quite another to deny the accuracy of a computer model for the medium and distant future.
The liberals don’t mind using the word denier though as we’re only talking about the death of Jews for the most part. As we know the BBC and the liberal left despise Jews.
Has anyone read this?
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/12025/53/
About time, too!
Yep there was a lot of posting on that a while back. Another BBC cover up at work. The BBC will simply appoint some camp liberal to say the BBC’s done nothing wrong.
So the BBC will appoint someone to investigate the BBC – how independent will that be?
Quick bit of fortune telling……they’ll find some “on message” left wing believer in the religion of the Green God, limit the scope of the work to something meaningless, pay him a fortune and then get exactly the result they need so they can go on lying to the world.
http://anti-citizen-one.blogspot.com/2010/01/unbeleivably-one-sided-aljabeebya.html
Poor Beeboids. This is two religious bubbles burst in the space of a couple weeks. Whatever will they do? Same as most people who’ve suffered loss of something in which they have a personal investment, I expect: lash out in anger.
They’re already doing it on behalf of their beloved Obamessiah. Who’s repsonsible for His low approval ratings? What nefarious forces can we blame, as it can’t be His fault? Same for Warmism now.
They’ll console themselves with the knowledge that they were just going with the “scientific consensus”, only reporting what the latest knowledge was. That’s the excuse David Gregory used to give when he was brave enough to debate with us here. I always assumed he stopped engaging here because he just became the whipping boy for Warmism, and wasn’t allowed to discuss anything else without being badgered about the topic.
But we’d always ask, what happens when information comes out that it’s all bogus, that the “hockey stick” is wrong, glacier information wrong, etc? Gregory would reply that he expected that the BBC would dutifully report that as it came out. They certainly failed in that regard when the emails were first revealed – to them. As we see larger and larger cracks in the Warmism facade, the BBC is far behind the curve as each story comes out in the press.
Now who is to blame, BBC?
The Beeb is as biased as ever in its recent reporting of the alarmist IPCC spoeksman Pachuri and the claim about melting glaciers in the Himilayas. This comment from Dr Richard North of EU Referendum Blog:
How typical it is for the BBC to enter the Glaciergate fray, giving a subtly distorted and one-sided account of events, without mentioning the “conflict of interest” issues that have been highlighted by this blog and subsequently by a number of MSM outlets.
As I have observed before, censorship and distortion is manifest most strongly in what organs like the BBC don’t say, as much as what they do.
Thus, all we get from the Beeb is a travesty of the “state of the art” in their supposed summary, where they state: “Some commentators maintain that these developments, taken together with the contents of e-mails stolen last year from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, it undermines (sic) the credibility of climate science.”
Having presented this shallow pastiche, they then give the floor to the chairman of the IPCC, with this laughably distorted narrative, on the issue of his resignation:
But a defiant Dr Pachauri said: “I want to tell the sceptics… who see me as the face and the voice of the science of climate change, I am in no mood to oblige them; I am going to remain as chairman of the IPCC for my entire term.”
What Pachauri has not yet come to terms with is that he is “dead man walking”. It is not a question of whether, but when he is drummed out – although some would like to see him stay in place to deliver AR5, thereby ensuring it completely lacks credibility.
On the today programme this Tuesday morning the venerable John Humphreys supposedly dealt with the issue of Pachauri and the melting glaciers. So who did they get to give a ‘balanced’ view of the current scandal?
Tony Juniper – a rabid AGW advocate and wannabe Green MP – and the ‘reasonable’ face of East Anglia’s CRU unit – a chap called Newton (?).
Juniper was extremely scathing and aggressive in his condemnation of the ‘climate deniers’ – the melting glaciers error had been uncovered by the IPCC scientists themselves – the system was working – good scientists were being persecuted and maligned by ‘voodoo science nutters’ and blogosphere idiots. The ‘reasonable’ man from the CRU said that while there had been some ‘unfortunate errors’ with regard to the claims about the extinction of Himalayan glaciers – he merely advised more rigorous screening protocols.
This was the BBC’s idea of ‘balanced reporting’; not one single sceptic was interviewed, no analysis of the real depth of the scandal.
The glacier-piece was dealt with after an extremely long ‘death of the oceans from CO2 acidification’ presented in completely religious-fervour mode by Tom Feilden (?). The oceans are turning to acid; ‘vinegar dissolves eggshells’ – soon the oceans will be like vinegar – all the poor wee shells will dissolve; we are all going to die. Oh and the NERC has given Plymouth University £10 million to investigate vinegar and eggshells.
You could not make it up. Total lack of objective reporting.
Sorry, in relation to the Today Programme’s biased discussion of the IPCC it was Professor Mike Hume – Professor of Climate Change at the East Anglia CRU who was being interviwed along with the rabid Tony Juniper. Both of them were staunchly defending the IPCC – Hume in fact said that it wasn’t the fact that the IPCC had included false claims in its AR4 report – it was the fact that the internet now allowed people to ‘check’ these claims that was at fault!! Juniper merely worshipped at the throne of the IPCC and said anyone who criticised it was ‘not a scientist’.
Juniper merely worshipped at the throne of the IPCC and said anyone who criticised it was ‘not a scientist’.
Nor is he. They don’t seem to see the stupidity of their arguments.