Richard Black, the esteemed BBC environment reporter, reminds me of Godzilla; no matter what is thrown at him, he rampages on, extolling the perils of global warming.
For days, the blogsphere has been alive with further evidence that seriously undermines the credibility of the IPCC’s AR4 assessment, not least of which was its claim that 40% of the Amazon rainforest was at risk from minor changes in rainfall.
The back ground (for those who don’t know it) is that earlier in the year, in a story that become known as Amazongate, the Sunday Times revealed that this scary claim was based on propaganda from the World Wildlife Fund rather than any scientific investigation. Afterwards, the warmist bullies (as they do) squealed with anger, issued various threats, and shamefully, the Sunday Times backed down,publishing a retraction a couple of weeks back.
But Richard North, over on EU Referendum, who broke the original story, has continued his brilliant sleuthing on this subject – and has established that, despite a miasma of misinformation from WWF and warmists fanatics such as George Monbiot, the whole scare story was based on nothing more than cod science on a dodgy website that was taken down years ago. (I’ve linked to only one story on EU Referendum – there are dozens more.)
But that doesn’t bother our Richard. In true Godzilla fashion, here he is today, raving on:
Meanwhile, the Sunday Times was recently forced to apologise for claiming that IPCC projections on die-back of the Amazon rainforest were unsubstantiated.
Unsubstantiated? What would it take for Mr Black to acknowledge that he is wrong? Or to accept that the real facts of these matters are being established not by the so-called scientists (who are cynically being paid by governments to prove that AGW warming exists so that they can raise taxes), but by the blogsphere – by honourable people who have no axe to grind but to establish the truth.
Did you see Clack interviewed on BBC Newswatch? What an arrogant fat prick he is.
George Monbiot has appoligised and the Guardian is in the final stages of a humiliating climdown, the IPCC AR4 references have been proven to be another bodged up slap dash filler among a host of slapdash fillers. Yet the BBCs own Richard Black is either stupid,ignorant,blind or all three.
Yet again the BBC is shown to have a tenuous grip on reality prefering instead the comfort of the sacred narrative, nothing can deflect them from their prejudice it seems not even the folding of their primary sources of information. The WWF and the IPCC and the AGW cult high priest Moonbat have been proven wrong, their combined poisonous attack on critics like Richard North was a PR disaster and a humiliating defeat for them.
If the BBC were an honest and impartial observer it would report the scandal and ask some very awkward questions of those people who have damaged the credibility of the IPCC yet incredibly the BBC and Black ignore reality to indulge in petty attack smears on its enemies and make no mistake about it Richard North is a mortal enemy of the BBC, they hate him yet they also fear him.
You can smell the BBCs fear and hostility from a thousand miles away, North is one of those rare people with the intellignece and the moral backbone to pursue the truth and he has been the author of some of the most stunning revelations about the AGW fraud.
The BBCs Black is the very opposite of North, Black is a toady functionary and a puppet, he is a typical obedient mindless foot soldier fed with propaganda which he dutifully churns out. The truth and the facts means nothing to Black and his kind, he is paid to lie and cheat and mislead and thats what he does, just another mindless mouthpiece churning out crap and getting paid handsomely for it.
Money matters to Black, he saw the gravytrain and the payoffs availible and took the devils shilling while Richard North struggles on trying to expose the lies and the fraud.
Notice the difference between EUFERENDUM and the BBC one has all the money in the world with no moral and ethical centre and the other has no money but has a huge moral and ethical centre.
The BBC is party to a giant fraud of epic proportions, it has engaged in some of the worst ethical crimes of the entire fraud, it does not just report on the AGW fraud it is a key particitpant and enabler of that fraud and without the BBCs massive funding and manpower and political will the AGW fraud could not have been the propaganda success it has undoubtedly been.
Richard North represents the very best of human endeavour and Richard Black represents some of the worst attributes of human failings and weaknesses.
We are very, very lucky to have Richard North. Please show him your support in his one-man crusade. It’s Paypal so is very easy. https://www.paypal.com/uk/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=eVH-vNr_qjs-XEYh9EDmfy36EMXjUpl8fuEUhTRnmttbP9UptIUhYA8pBMm&dispatch=5885d80a13c0db1f22d2300ef60a6759516e590e949da361e9502e138eefdd27
Well said yet again, Cassie !
Thankyou my friend again you make me blush :-[
Superb post, Cassandra !
Black is not only defending on “Amazongate” – he is trying to defend on the Dutch report that said it was nonsense to suggest that 50% of Holland could be submerged owing to global warming.
Black lies – and knows he lies.
Thanks for the kind words John!
It’s ‘Faze’ not ‘Phase’. It should read “But that doesn’t faze our Richard”.
In the Today daily survey of the printed press this morning at 7:45, no mention was made of the main headline in the Times as below:
UN report on climate change was ‘one-sided’
Thisheaded a report on yet another whitewash (this time by dupes in the Netherlands) but the whitewash doesn’t completely cover some (not enough) criticism of the IPCC.
EURef is a tour de force which I can’t recommend highly enough. I visit here often but comment rarely and this is for one very good reason: the case against the BBC is proven and I have little to add to the items and comment posted.
After the BBC’s years of support for the climate propaganda from places such as East Anglia Univ, the BBC now attempts to separate itself from that by talking about ‘they’, not ‘we’.
(As BBC’s self-described ‘Environmental Analyst’, R. Harrabin did on BBC’ Radio 4 ‘Today’ this morning, at about 7:45 am.)
Ah, this is now explained:
r4today Has your view of climate science been altered by the#Climategate scandal?
My first thought was ‘at least there’s an appreciation that something went astray’, and the fact of it being a scandal at last accepted… in some previously defensive quarters.
That said, and especially given the constraints of twitter, what a barking way to pose such a question to get anything other than fodder for a silly ‘poll’, which I am sure will soon appear: ‘146% of listeners whose views we selected say…’
The BBC dont do irony do they?
9 out of 10 people who share our views and prejudices agree with us completely, the sample being weighted with supporters and more supporters.
Fake polls for fake people!
I heard the segment of the Today programme at 8.55 this morning re Climategate. Well worth a listen. Lord Stern being allowed to speak for 2-3 minutes totally uninterrupted by Humphrys before they brought in (presumably in their eyes to add some balance) Fred Pearce (sp?), who quickly reassured us that he agreed with the “big picture” as set out by Lord Stern about global warming and that there is no “grand conspiracy” but just a bit of “grubbiness round the edges” caused by the CRU e-mails. And who is to blame for it all? Why, it is you and me, “bad bloggers” and particularly those who shamefully resort to such underhand means as Freedom of Information requests to try and find out what the CRU data actually is.