Richard Black, in his weekly BBC propaganda column, disgracefully suggests that those who won’t swallow climate change lies are linked to the white supremacists Stormfront. He argues that those who have advocated massive global warming taxes such as Stephen Schneider – who died this week – have been subjected to unwarranted abuse and are working under a constant barrage of nasty threats from sceptics. He doesn’t spell it out, but the implication is very clear; those who deny climate change are immoderate, right-wing thugs.
I challenge Richard, therefore, to write something equally as trenchant about warmists in the context of the tale of obfuscation, brick-walling and sheer bloody minded obstruction that met Australian scientists Jennifer Marohasy and John Abbot when Mr Abbot approached the Met Office in the UK under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the data that underpinned the notorious hockey-stick. This is their conclusion:
This case study provides evidence that there is a culture of antagonism towards anyone who may wish to make independent appraisals of information relating to climate change and particularly if it relates to variations in global temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions. This is shown through both the CRU emails and the approach to Mr Holland’s request to the Met Office. The reluctance to comply with the Fol legislation does not result from bureaucratic misunderstanding of relatively recently enacted legislation. Instead it stems from an antagonism by institutional climate scientists towards those who may wish to independently examine evidence for climate change and its causes. The dangers revealed lie both in operating an effective Fol system, and openness and transparency in an area of immense scientific importance.
It’s a long read, but I urge you to persevere; it illustrates that to warmists, there is nothing they will not do to cover up shortcomings in their data. Chances of Mr Black covering this to balance his outpouring against sceptics? Don’t hold your breath. After all, to him, the likes of Marohasy and Abbot are something you find under your shoe.
PS. Richard, the paper containing the information is not published on the sceptic blogs you often sneer about (and occasionally threaten to sue)from your BBC ivory tower. It’s in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Law and Management.
Peer review journal?? Whoo, no chance. The BBC does not do professional integrity on global warming.
It is unbelievable that warmists who manipulate data, “lose” it, refuse to disclose it, “peer review ” each others papers, threaten and bully all of us with the dire consequences of “global warming” dare to accuse sceptics of anything.
Because they have utterly no shame. To them, the ends justify the means. Or at least the government funding does.
Black’s piece really plumbed new depths. Leading sceptic blogs such as WattsUpWithThat and BishopHill immediately reported Schneider’s death and sent condolences to his family – in the blog posts and also in readers’ comments.
Trust Black to present something like Stormfront as “typical”. Par for the course, I suppose, as so much of the Warmist case is built on “outlier evidence”, on extremes.
Black is just a shill for the Warmist movement. When has he EVER presented any real view of the sceptics’ case ? When, for example, has he properly reported all the doubts over the iconic Hockey Stick ? Why hasn’t he reported that Muir Russell failed to join the interviewing of Phil Jones – as did most of his panel ? When did he report that Russell did not interview any critic of Jones, Mann et al. When did he report that the Oxburgh enquiry was ostensibly set up to enquire into the “science” – but after the 5-page report (5-page!!!) Oxburgh denied that he had sought to examine the science.
On and on it goes. By failing to report properly, and by “enquiries” failing to enquire properly, the Warmist case becomes even more discredited.
As I understand it Black and Harribin are aware of the attacks on them on B-BBC.
If I were being attacked in this way , I would appear hear to defend myself. The fact that they don’t either means they know they have no defence or they are too busy picking up large fees for chairing conferences.
Tsk, tsk Grant. Last time that was suggested here, Mr Black was on to his lawyers faster than you can say Carter Ruck.
Roland,
Yes, I remember that. But, I also remember B-BBC didn’t back down. All credit to this website.
I am not an expert in defamation law, but the advice I have , is that the “owner” of a website is potentially liable for alleged defamatory comments by posters.
If Black feels he is defamed here, he should have the guts to sue. ( Not referring to the excellent ” Sue ” who posts here, of course )
Dick Black you’re an eco twat
i think the defence of fair comment is applicable to the above
The late George Carlin had exactly the right view of alarmists like Black :
Black is still digging the hole deeper.
John,
Great link. I confess I hadn’t heard of George Carlin. Brilliant satire.
So sad that he is dead and not able to perform his edgy comedy on the BBC. RIP, George, but I would rather say “RIP BBC “.
Nutters, cranks and weirdos often attract each others attention and abuse so its no surprise that some climate apocalypse merchants have been targeted by Stormfront.
Black should know his territory by now. We’ve seen people who refuse to believe in his faith being compared to those who deny the Holocaust, and George Monbiot once said flying the Atlantic is as unacceptable as child abuse. What’s sauce for the goose etc..