Richard Black ploughs on with his eco-scares. Today he yells ‘fire!‘ about fish – they are going to become extinct by 2050 thanks to our greed. He frames the topic entirely in terms of the agenda of greenie fanatics, and fails to deal properly with the real villain of the peace, the EU. Its insane Common Fisheries Policy (under which millions of dead fish are slung back into the sea), combined with rapacious buying up of African fishing licences, have combined to create scarcity from plenty.
Meanwhile Mr Black and the rest of the legion of BBC greenie reporters studiously avoid the real environment stories of the day. First, as Richard North has masterfully shown, IPCC claims about the impact of climate change on the South American rain forests were the worst kind of unsubstantiated bunk; second, the Muir Russell committee’s so-called investigation of Climategate, which the BBC thought proved that the scientists involved had been exonerated, failed to deal properly with the main issues and made judgments about the science involved which were clearly outside its competence; and third, Lord Oxburgh’s report – which the BBC has claimed showed that the science of climate change was vindicated – also failed to do its job properly, to the extent that the one scientist on the House of Commons Science and Technology committee has bravely said that parliament was misled.
Meanwhile Roger Harrabin, that other doyen of BBC environment reporting, here treacherously claims to address sceptics’ concerns about Oxburgh, while sticking to the ludicrous BBC line that 98% of climate scientists believe in man-made global warming so it must be true, and – the corollary – that sceptics must be idiots.
These bloody BBC journalists would be sacked for lying if in a private business. But no. In beeboid land they are gods. I love it when I argue at work with young ex-grads when they say ‘climate change is real because it is on the BBC and reported by Monbiot’. I once printed off 10 pages of real evidence that climate change is all about money. The silence from these young believers is deafening.
I had a similar experience, but after my call for proof that “AGW” is real they tell me to read Moonbat in the Guardian. I told them to look at this list of scientists who are sceptical on the AGW theory:
http://jer-cornerarchive.blogspot.com/2009/04/flat-earth-society.html
I then get the reply that they must work for “big oil”. You cannot reason with these people.
I saw a recent interview on a Warmist website with Michael Mann – he still kept harping on about the sceptics being “well funded” by eg oil interests.
Talk about paranoia ! or rather, lying through his damn teeth. It’s a shame Steve McIntyre as his foremost critic doesn’t sue him. Steve would be a millionaire if his unpaid work on demolishing the Hockey Stick had reveived a mere fraction of the funding creeps like Mann and Jones receive.
I am looking forward to the publication next month of Andrew Montford’s “enquiry into the 3 whitewash enquiries” – we probably know the bones of it, but bringing it all into a single summary could be helpful.
I then get the reply that they must work for “big oil”. You cannot reason with these people.
********************************************
I think ‘big green’ does a sight more funding than ‘big oil’.
Interesting aticle by Booker in today’s Sunday Telegraph.
Can’t imagine beeboids mentioning this scam
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7883372/Amazongate-At-last-we-reach-the-source.html
“It turns out that one of the most widely publicised statements in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a claim on which tens of billions of dollars could hang – was not based on peer-reviewed science, as repeatedly claimed, but originated solely from anonymous propaganda published on the website of a small Brazilian environmental advocacy group. ”
Says Booker. Now the question is -“Is he right?”. If he is not why is Black and Harrabin not blogging about it on the BBC . If he is right then why is Black and Harrbin not blogging about it on the BBC?
Because they are ignoring it proves to me that they are reporting only one side of the debate.
If Booker was writing about any other subject where the corruption was so massive, it would be headline news.
‘reporting only one side of the debate’
Which, really, isn’t reporting. It’s advocacy.
And by being so overt, and inept, using Press Release republishers as opposed to qualified, thinking correspondents, the BBC has probably done more damage to the cause of environmental understanding and trust in authority than any medium.
Agreed. We should look after the environment, but now I automatically distrust any pro-environment message I hear because I assume I am not hearing the full facts. This is very damaging to those with a genuine message.
And having lost trust in the BBC through its overt greenery, I believe nothing I hear from them anywhere else either.
Meanwhile, James Macintyre at the New Statesman ( see http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/public-accounts/2010/07/peter-mandelson-bbc-wing ) tells us what a silly idea it is that anyone thinks the BBC is Left-wing. Oh, no, no, no, no – it is actually quite the reverse! So, there you have it, the BBC is obviously a Rightie, Eurosceptic, climate-change-sceptic Fascist tool.
The obvious conclusion ? – everyone should want to close down the BBC: sounds good to me!
Developing that thought, as it is failing everyone, few would mourn it being shut down… or at least restricted to the few areas it can do well… and without idealogical baggage being imposed by legions of arts grads who feel the masses need to be re-educated as much as educated.
Oddly, I’d hazard that suddenly one ‘wing’ might be more vocal in arguing that Aunty stays just the way she is. For some reason.
Actually Robin – Harrabin says “98% of leading climate scientists”, which means even less than “98% of climate scientists”.
But even here Harrabin is not even quoting the full story:
“Some 98% of climate scientists that publish research on the subject support the view that human activities are warming the planet, a study suggests.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10370955.stm
Actually the piece quoted above is by Palab Gosh and seems more balanced than anything put out by the arts graduate Harrabin.
These days I view any poll on the BBC, especially one ‘analysed’ on matters of science by one of their arts grad PR retypers, as worth about as much as a battle outcome claim by Comical Ali.