At the beginning of January, I reported that Peter Thomson, who is a senior environment editor for the BBC, is secretary of the campaigning greenie organisation the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ). Since then, I’ve been carefully tracking his work to see what impact his views have on his reporting.
How did he tackle the news that the IPCC had admitted that it had got it wrong about the Himalayan glaciers? Would it be to go to get a reaction from a leading ‘sceptic’ such as Anthony Watts, who has monitored such problems? Well no. He brought on to The World (the programme of which he is environment editor) the Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilpirin, a political reporter and Democrat supporter turned climate change fanatic who – from the list of her postings – clearly beats even the great Moonbat in her alarmist fervour. And was her reporting at all critical of the IPCC? Er,no. If you listen, you’ll find the fragrant right-on Ms Eilpirin thinks it was just one itsy bitsy mistake and the rest of what the IPCC does is perfect.
I listened next to how Mr Thomson reported the election of Republican Scott Brown to replace Teddy Kennedy in the US Senate. In this report, he speaks first to an energy industry spokesman who is pleased that this could mean the end of cap and trade CO2 emissions bill. That’s a cue for our Peter to spend the rest of the report exploring what must be done instead to stop what he unquestionably accepts is CO2 “pollution”. There’s not a flicker of a doubt that this is vital. And finally, on to Obama’s state of the union address. You may remember, the audience guffawed loudly when the great one mentioned the evidence about ‘climate change’. But for Mr Thomson, that’s not remotely the issue. He’s very excited that his hero the Democrat President is planning to do something about green jobs (and hence’climate change’), despite the ignominious drubbing in the poll.
When I originally reported on the issue of Mr Thomson’s bias, I looked mainly at what his organisation the SEJ was doing. That was alarming enough. There’s now clear and abundant evidence that the brainwashing techniques the SEJ advocates are fully in play in his reporting.
These people are demented – no reality check will ever change them – which is what makes them so dangerous. He will just carry spreading his vile propaganda as though nothing has ever happened. In a more enlightened society, where there is no state-funded broadcasting and quangos, a moron like Thomson would have a platform to stand on.
Sorry, I’m rushing. I meant to say “would NOT have a platform to stand on”… Now back to work.
A BBC straw in the cooler wind?
“Wow! BBC man lays in to environmental ‘fascism'”
(by Benedict Brogan)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100024564/wow-bbc-man-lays-in-to-environmental-fascism/
George R – he does; but only because he’s worried that the greenies are not concentrating on climate change enough!
The Beeboids are all pooing bricks now, worried about their jobs because of the Al Beeb Trust investigation into the pro-moonbat water melon politics and the climate change activists posing as journalists that have hijacked the agenda, science and the weather
It looks like ALL the temperature arguments are very suspect :
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025499.php
So many (grubby) fingers; so many pies:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html#P91808346
If I may quote from a poster:
http://www.iigcc.org/index.aspx
“The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion. A full list of members is available on the membership page”.
IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said: “The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.”
The BBC HoP is the Chair of this Carbon Trading driven investment scheme!
Like so much, so often… truly … unique.
This is all as predicted, really. Every fresh revelation of Warmist fraud is considered not a blow to the faith but merely an obstacle to overcome for those still trying to preach it. It gets more like a religion by the minute.
Spot on, it’s like Barry and his healthcare reforms. You lot out the don’t get it so we need to keep repeating the same message until you do. We are right you are wrong.
and not to forget that the BBC is heavily involved in Orwellian activities to control the weak minded and deluded deniers by correcting their deficient mental abilities.
Where there’s muck there’e brass!
While Harriban and Co. are trying to tell you that all these problems with the so-called science of Climate Change are no big deal, here’s an alternative view.
Do three errors mean breaking point for IPCC?
There’s some important information here which is another black mark against the “scientific consensus”, which isn’t really either one.
I believed the IPCC reports, which summarize the research of some 4,000 scientists, but I had some serious reservations. For one thing, the IPCC reports contained very little data from Chinese researchers. I was told the IPCC refused to consider Chinese data because the Chinese research was not peer-reviewed
China is not a small country. Its landmass spans several climate zones and includes the roof of the world. I have to wonder how data from China would affect the IPCC’s findings.
Several Chinese scientists who have gone over the IPCC report believe that the IPCC may have overstated the link between global temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere.
In a paper published in the December issue of the Chinese language Earth Science magazine, Ding Zhongli, an established environmental scientist, stated that the current temperatures on earth look normal if global climate changes over the past 10,000 years are considered.
Oops. Of course, the BBC doesn’t want you to know any of this. Harriban is trying to define all terms and control the debate.
What we need is a new discourse which acknowledges the majority view on climate science, accepts uncertainties and encourages debate among scientists over their observations of the world – a debate framed in the language of risk and uncertainty in which economics and societal values play a central role.
Consdier that first sentence. What they’ve been calling the “scientific consensus” suddenly becomes the “majority view”, now that we know that Warmist “science” has been holed below the waterline. Then Harrabin speaks of accepting “uncertainties”. Like any good religious leader, he’s acknowledging that the flock may have some uncertainties in their faith. Clearly, though, there’s still no question in his mind that Warmism is Truth. We must find another way to address those uncertainties, right, Roger?
But the BBC School of Journalism has taught him well, so he chooses his words carefully. It almost sounds like the Beeboid has an open mind now, until he says that any discussion must be framed within some vague rubric of “economics and society values”. Which values would those be? I bet the answer isn’t Objectivist. Come see the bias inherent in the system.
“What they’ve been calling the “scientific consensus” suddenly becomes the “majority view”
I actually heard on the 6’o’clock news on Radio 4 where they were described as “leading scientists”.
OT
Obama struts like Mick Jagger ?
For year after year we had acid remarks about Bush all over the BBC – we still do.
But has anyone heard much acid criticism of Obama ? Or is it nearly all sycophantic flattery like this ?
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/01/if-music-be-the-food-of-love-maestro-obama-play-on.html
“BBC criticised for scientific ‘cheap sensationalism'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7128624/BBC-criticised-for-scientific-cheap-sensationalism.html
Even the Guardian is looking wobbly now, Phil Jones looks even more dodgy :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese