The BBC has finally woken up to some elements of the deluge of climate realism that has emerged via blogs over the past months, and has reported that the CRU may have acted illegally in not complying to freedom of information requests about its data. But have no fear, behind the scenes, its propagandists are working as assiduously as ever to produce ‘climate change’ moonshine. Back in November, I found that BBC journalists and others were being brainwashed on special courses by the green fanatical PR outfit Futerra. Now a BBC reporter called Helen Grady has filed this, pointing out that alarmists use too much religious end-of-the-world nonsense in attempting to terrify people. Her source for this concern? Why, none other than Futerra, those same ‘experts’ to whom the BBC shells out thousands of pounds of our hard-earned cash – in order to spout such nonsense.
Meanwhile, Harrabin continues to report faithfully as ‘the science’ a bogus survey which claims that CO2 feedback loops are going to cause out-of-control temperature rises. It takes two minutes on the blogsphere to find that these alarmist lunatics are recycling entirely unreliable proxy data to back up their theories, along with the same bogus computer models that underpin the whole ‘climate change’ edifice. So why does he report it all as the gospel truth?
Interesting the tide must be turning if hardcore believers (well money makers) like Futerra are starting to change their output which has remained constant for the last 5 years or more.
Out of interest Futerra’s boss has a LinkedIn page ..
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/solitairetownsend
Her qualifications must come in handy with understanding the complex science behind AGW 🙂
As soon as climate change was excepted as a religion any credibility it had went out of the window. Is the Bible a scientific resource? I think not.
As those of us who are deniers we have long suspected that very little of the so called data behind this research has ever been put up for proper scientific scrutiny and what has has been seen to be fiddled or based on crap.
Not only that but the original tree ring data was lost years ago. Anything based on that original data must be discounted on the grounds it cannot be verified.
What I find annoying is how the general scientific community have sat back and allowed these crooks to trash the principles of science that any theory must be put up for testing and that ALL the data and experiments used must also be available to the wider scientific community to cross examine.
Perhaps the general scientific community is frightened that if they say anything against Man made climate change their funding will be stopped.
This is getting as bad as the Catholic church back in the middle ages burning people if they dared to speak out.
It is worth noting that it increasingly appears that the release of the CRU emails and the even more explosive Harry_Read_Me file (Google for it if you haven’t seen it !) was a leak, not an external hack as first described. The police are no longer describing it as a hack, and Mike Hulme of East Anglia Uni described it as a leak in the interview with John Humphrys. This would confirm the analyses by computer experts who have said that it would not have been feasible for an external hacker to have found all that stuff on various servers and PCs. It all looked like a dossier pre-assembled at the Uni.
It therefore appears that someone at East Anglia is pissed off with the whole AGW craziness.
Deserves a medal !
You guys MUST listen back to Marcus Brigstocke being interviewed on Radio 5 by Richard Bacon. Those two were clearly on the point of opening a jar of superlube Vaseline together.
Bacon’s closing comment “I could interview you forever Marcus”. I nearly threw up in the car at that point.
1327 13:36
Surely “Shakespeare Studies” and other fiction are the perfect qualifications for Global Warming fanatics ?
I wonder how much we pay the Shakespeare expert Harabin to churn out AGW propaganda?
Brigstocke was prattling on about climate change to Bacon. For a man that claims to be a comedian the statement that “I’ve been to the Arctic twice” seemed lost on him. Just how much Co2 is produced by camp wet liberals flying up to the Arctic to them lecture us about climate change.
Brigstocke also didn’t like the idea that anyone would dare question scientists. What like Brigstocke wouldn’t have wanted the UN questioned about their view that Saddam had WMD?
Nice one, Robin. Keep it up.
Not a Ray of sunshine Robin, its more of a case of covering ones botty when the poo hits the fan, and its a huge turd and a massive fan.
i first noticed this around new year time, when Dick Black the Eco-Moonbat, one of the biggest propagansters at El Beeb said that 2010 will be more than just climate change, it’ll also be about biodiversity
and one may asks ones self; why?
well thats because the BBC Trust is to review science coverage amid claims of bias over climate change.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241049/BBC-announces-review-science-coverage-month-revealed-ignored-Climategate-leaked-emails.html
still waiting for harrabin the horrible to post anything thats isnt moonbat friendly, maybe hes not worried about his job like the other Moonbats
just read this from Dick Blacks blog, posted by minuend
Global Warming = Biodiversity = the same group of advocates pushing their own political agenda.
Sam old, same old…..the usual suspects….WWF…Greenpeace…UN bodies….government spin…. media nonsense….exaggerated scientific claims….fraud….been there done that.
Lets move on nothing of importance here.
Shuckman on BBC 6PM news on the freedom of information ruling.
“It’s a blow” says Shuckman, really? A blow for freedom and democracy or a blow because yet again the left have been caught out lying? “The climate change sceptics have been bombarding the CRU for years” he stated. What’s wrong with that? Don’t the BBC bombard people THEY want information from?
Very interesting how the BBC don’t like democracy working when it makes their corrupt lefty mates look bad. The CRU is publically funded, we are entitled to see ALL their data. In fact the CRU should be more than happy to put the data out there to allow proper peer review. If they’ve nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.
Bombarding them for years? I have read that CRU had received 12 FOI requests in total.
But even if it was more – so what? It was “research” that was carried out with tax payers money. All the data should have been readily available for this type of request at a moments notice.
When you recieve public money you are a public servant full stop.
For a ‘journalist’, Mr. Shuckman seems to have an odd take on accuracy and reporting standards… yet seems to be allowed free rein to confuse opinion with fact. Constantly.
Just checked out this Futerra gang of eco-fascists. They are movement’s Leni Riefenstahl.
Part of the schtick seems to be ASTRO-TURFING. That is: creating bogus “grassroots” alleged COMMUNITY “projects” to soften up local “opinion” for eco-totalitarianism.
Like the imposition on unwilling locals of GIANT WIND FARMS, which actually destroy huge swathes of the envirnonment. Not least by offering a giant rotating moaning eyesore. Helen Keller wouldn’t notice though.
Oh yes, you get huge noise pollution par excellence with a giant death blade turning. Though to be fair, that’s not that often! For
I was drawn to this particular PUFFERY drivel… this is Orwellian Newspeak writ large.
Futerra designed and led a community and stakeholder consultation programme on the Manhood Peninsula (an area of low lying land south-east of Chichester). The aim of the project was to bring effective local views into the planning regime to ensure that revisions made to accommodate climate change adaptation were understood and supported by residents.
Bollocks. It’s all ASTRO-TURFING. Note the weasel words… there’s no frackin’ consultation here. It’s all been decided… and FUTERRA’S role is to massage whatever the deluded eco-nutters at County Council HQ have been told to do at the national level.
Screw the locals who just want to be left alone, we’re gonna ram this eco-shite down ya gobs.
They want to help destroy an area of natural beauty with WIND FARMS.
That is perfect “New Labour” speak – I come across it daily in my job. You make a decision first and then you do a public “consultation” to back it up. But you only consult the people or local organisations who agree with the proposal.
Here is a good example.
“Mr Johnson boasted that the display ban was favoured by an “overwhelming majority” of 96,000 responses to a six-month public consultation on the subject.
Yet only a handful of those 96,000 respondents came from individuals submitting their personal views. Almost 70,000 came from those collected by pressure groups entirely funded by the Department for Health.
Among the groups submitting block responses were SmokeFree NorthWest, SmokeFree Liverpool and SmokeFree North East, which were all set up by the Government to lobby against the tobacco industry.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4076290/Government-fixing-health-consultations-with-taxpayer-funded-groups.html
JHT — They should all be herded into a monstrous spaceship and flown into the heart of the sun.
Those pesky FOI requests to CRU were all from “climate change sceptics” not a one from somebody who just wanted to check the scientific integrity of the data/findings.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8486440.stm
That failure to resist broad brush labelling, alone, damns any BBC claim to objectivity in how it ‘interprets events’ to ‘enhance the narrative’.
Excellent piece on Channel 4 about ClimateGate – puts the CRU and “hide the decline” in a very bad light :
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/5-x-DELL-AXIM-X51-PDAs-WITH-ACCESSORIES_W0QQitemZ250570043300QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_AudioTVElectronics_PDAsAccessories_PDAs_JN?hash=item3a57236fa4
Meanwhile Nigel Lawson has asked for the Muir Russel enquiry on CRU to be held in public