My Biased BBC colleague Robin Horbury is much better at AGW posts than me but I wanted to bring Richard Black’s latest salvo to your attention. Note how poor Richard feels oppressed by those who dare question AGW. He seems to now saying that “ideological purity” (or what we simply call balance) is impossible because he is under attack from pro-warmers as well as   “deniers”. Please be gentle with your feedback, I fear Richard is feeling hot under the collar!

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Dazed-and-Confused says:

    I fear that the “Pro Warmers” are nothing else but a bogus sham, so Comrade Black doesn’t have to change his self righteous position one iota.


  2. John Horne Tooke says:

    When Black or Harrabin spout their mantra “The Artic is getting hotter” think on this:

    “Arctic stations near heat sources show warming over the last century. Arctic stations that are isolated from manmade heat sources show no warming. The plots of “isolated stations” and “urban stations” below clearly illustrate the differences.”

    It is something I hadn’t realised, but there are “small scientific  communities” in the Arctic which act like urban heat islands.


  3. David Preiser (USA) says:

    That is hilarious.  Black claims that he is attempting “to report on climate change objectively”, while using the ideological term “climate change”.  I’m having a good laugh right now at the idea that Black feels under attack from his fellow Warmists because he’s been smacked around for his BS so many times that he’s had to take a step back.

    And I love how he can casually worry about no one listening to an opposing point of view when the BBC itself decided that there was no reason to give air time to opposing views about this very issue.  Brilliant.

    Serendipitously, just now before I checked back in to this site, I was reading an article in The New Atlantis (a tech-ish publication, and not the JournoList-infested opinion mag) entitled “Environmentalism as Religion”.

    It includes a quote from Richard Dyson (an “opponent of the consensus”, as the BBC would have it).  He says the same thing many people here have been saying for ages: that Warmism has in sense replaced socialism as the new secular religion.  Dyson says that the ethics of this new religion:

    are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world…. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists — most of whom are not scientists — holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

    The thing is, author of this piece favors Warmism, although he realizes that there are many parallels between what he calls Environmentalism and religion.  He also quotes Ray Evans, and Australian politician who does not subscribe to Warmism, who talks about Warmists being harmful to the mining industry.  The second paragraph is key:

    Almost all of the attacks on the mining industry being generated by the environmentalist movement [in the 1990s] were coming out of Northern Europe and Scandinavia, and it didn’t take me long to work out that we were dealing with religious belief, that the elites of Northern Europe and Scandinavia — the political elites, the intellectual elites, even the business elites — were, in fact, believers in one brand of environmentalism or another and regardless of the facts. Some of the most bizarre policies were coming out of these countries with respect to metals. I found myself having to find out — “Why is this so?” — ­because on the face of it they were insane, but they were very strongly held and you’d have to say that when people hold onto beliefs regarding the natural world, and hold onto them regardless of any evidence to the contrary, then you’re dealing with religion, you’re not dealing with science….

    Secondly, it fulfills a religious need. They need to believe in sin, so that means sin is equal to pollution. They need to believe in salvation. Well, sustainable development is salvation. They need to believe in a mankind that needs redemption, so you get redemption by stopping using carbon fuels like coal and oil and so on. So, it fulfills a religious need and a political need, which is why they hold onto it so tenaciously, despite all the evidence that the whole thing is nonsense.

    It’s important to remember that the concepts behind Warmism existed before the “science” did.  The situation seems not unlike that of a religious person using selective archaeology to prove that everything in the Bible is true.


  4. Martin says:

    Well perhaps if the likes of Black hadn’t tried to spin this issue from the left wing point of view from the start and allowed proper scientific debate to take place (as science normally does) we wouldn’t be in this mess.

    The problem with the climate change issue is it’s become the new religion for the left, they don’t want to hear anything that might cut across their religious beliefs.

    On the same note I noticed that the BBC gave a lot of coverage to the people opposing the proposed High Speed 2 line that’s planned to run north of London.

    The BBC seemed very happy to promote the story that it was a Tory Government Minister getting beaten up by the middle class whitey’s. One of the claims from these groups is that the HS2 isn’t actually very eco friendly. On the Radio 5 report I heard not once did the BBC turn into their normal left wing sneering of anyone who opposes massive public transport projects in the name of ‘greenery’

    Could it be the BBC is torn? They’d like to see the Tories get a kicking off the middle class BMW lot who don’t want a nasty railway line running past their homes?

    Funny when Liebour were promoting high speed trains the BBC seemed keen as mustard. What changed?


  5. John Horne Tooke says:

    Black should not feel oppressed about anything – You can only feel oppressed if you take a stand on a topic and people disagree.  
     “It is crucial that in both their BBC work and in non BBC activities such as writing, speaking or giving interviews, they do not:-  
        * state how they vote or express support for any political party  
        * express views for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate  
        * advocate any particular position on an issue of current public controversy or debate  
        * exhort a change in high profile public policy.”  
    It is a disgrace that these people are allowed to push a viewpoint contrary to their guidelines.  How can the BBC ever be un-biased when they have people like this working for them ? How can anyone defend this one-sided rubbish?


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Black chairs Warmist conferences all the time.  Isn’t that a violation of this rule?


      • John Horne Tooke says:

        More than likely – but the BBC make and enforce the rules themselves. It is impossible for anyone or group to fight this grotesque confict of interests and the BBC know it.


      • Roland Deschain says:

        He would argue (and has, I think) that chairing a conference on a subject is not the same as supporting that subject.

        Yeah, right.


        • Grant says:

          And how many “deniers” chair these conferences ?


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          If he expresses his personal viewpoint while doing so, it’s a violation.  He expresses it on air all the time, so I don’t expect anything will stop him short of kicking him out the door.


  6. John Horne Tooke says:

    If Black and his cultist comrades acted like real journalists then no one would know who they were. The news should be the story not the so-called journalist. If he gets attacked from any side it just shows that his opinion is being questioned and not the news. If anyone was  to be attacked for a view it would be the person he was reporting not himself.

    So now no one loves him  – good  – he deserves all he gets. I have no symphathy for these self appointed guardians of our environment. If he wants people to listen to him then he should stand for the Green Party. But these people would get no where if they had to rely on the democratic processes.


  7. John Anderson says:

    I posted the following at Black’s blog.  I hope it survives the censors :

    Mr Black

    Did you set out to parody yourself ?   

    Have you seen the vilification meted out on sites such as RealClimate to anyone who challenges the orthodoxy you espouse ?

    Can you not see how civil and reasonable the discussions are on sites such as BishopHill in the UK, or WattsUpWithThat, or the new site by Dr Judith Curry  compared to the Warmist sites ?  Or do you only read one side of the argument ?

    You insult BBC licence-payers, sir,  to suggest that we who think you are in the tank for one side of the debate are – en masse – deluded and offensive.

    There is nothing wrong with being concerned about the environment.  That is fine by me.  But you have NIL scientific qualification to assume that you are right on scientific matters, and that us hoi polloi are wrong.  The Peter Principle seems to apply here.


    But obviously my view is worth nothing – you slur me as well as others as a “denier”.  The sort of tag that cheapskates use.


    I must confess – I have only an M.Sc.  (What do you have,  by the way ?)

    And I of course I get paid gazillions by Big Oil.  Because I am part of some sort of mob attack.

    Plus as I am nearly 70,  with a touch of experience of media frenzies and groupthink,  I must be getting crotchedy about being preached at by people like you and Roger Harrabin – whose wages we are forced to pay.


    Here are one or two simple questions – given that you exude expertise.  

    Was there are Medieval Warming Period – or is that an urban myth ?

    Were the late 1990s truly an unprecedented period of temperature increase – or was the RATE of increase matched by several other decades even in the last 100 years or so ?  (Please check out what Phil Jones has said.

    If things were NOT unprecedented – why all the panic ?

    Do you read closely any of the counter-case ?  

    Finally have you ever apologised for any of the panic sob-stories for which you are famous ?  Or notorious ?

    I have never sent anything abusive to you,  I regret it if others have.  But I know in my elderly bones that you frankly do not know what you are talking about,  that for years you have been riding a wave of spurious alarmism.

    And I rue the day the BBC gave people such as you and Harrabin such a leading propaganda position on matters that you are scientifically unqualified to judge.


    • Grant says:

      Excellent.  Let us know if you get any feedback.
      I only have a BSc in zoology,but I guess that gives me more of a right to comment on this subject than mere journalists like Black.


      • Grant says:

        PS  Most journalists have no expertise in anything, yet , in their pompous arrogance , they hector and lecture us on every subject under the sun, even though they know sweet FA. And Beeboids are the worst. I have nothing but total contempt for them and their ignorance.


  8. Natsman says:

    I see that that nice Mr. Yeo would be quite happy to see the back of Pachauri – but they only ever mention the “Glaciers melting by 2035” incident, as if it was the only error that the IPCC made, and ignore all the others, and the plagiarism, thinking that we’ll all forget in the fullness of time.

    Incidentally has anyone read this gem?  It seems that in 1972, according to Hubert Lamb the global temperature change had been falling since 1952, but today’s plot from HADCRU shows exactly the same period as an increasing trend – magic, or what?…



  9. Martin says:

    Some beeboid was commenting on the new waste of money down in Kent (wind farm) and was talking about how wind farms can’t store energy. Beeboid got all flustered and started to waffle on about hydro electricity and admitted “I’m not an engineer so I don’t know”. So yet another unqualified prat commenting on a subject he knows nothing about.

    A proper journalist with a technical background could easily rip the claims about wind farms apart. They are an utter waste of money, don’t generate electricity when needed and you can’t easily store it for when you do.


  10. Umbongo says:


    “A proper journalist . . ”  You’re joking right?  We’re talking the BBC here, not an organisation devoted to revealing truth – or even facts unless the “facts” support the narrative the BBC has bought into.  As such there’s no need for “proper journalists”.  All that’s required are wordsmiths who can spout or write whatever agrees with the received BBC opinion at that particular moment.


    • Martin says:

      True, so long as they can read a Liebour party press release or an extract from the Grauniad, that’s fine.


  11. AndyUk06 says:

    Black, like many long-time communists, is green on the outside, red on the inside. People seem to think that because the Soviet Union no longer exists communism is dead.  Richard Black is living proof that the leopard never changed it spots.

    Weakened trade unions meant that they needed new ways to organize their glorious revolution: what better way than to point the finger (by way of constant BBC drip drip bias) at  the food we eat, globalisation, farming, driving, flying…

    According to Forbes, Greenpeace is a “skillfully managed business” that has mastered “the tools of direct mail and image manipulation — and tactics that would bring instant condemnation if practiced by a for-profit corporation.”


  12. David Jones says:

    I think I’ve posted this link before http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

    Go down to the Generation by Fuel Type (Table) and see the huge contribution of wind!

    Nuclear used to be 30% and it needs to be again. Back in 1999 it was 28.9% – http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nshare.html – look at it now.


  13. Natsman says:

    But, but Mr. Huhne says the windfarms are the future – they’re going to power God knows how many million homes, and standby generation is going to be gas driven, from the nice former USSR.  Is he not aware of the coal under his feet?  That “dirty”,  nasty coal?  On which we used to depend for everything.  It never let us down then, it needs a second chance.  Why spend a fortune on imported wind turbines which only work some of the time?  They want to spend another fortune on improving British port facilities so that these offshore monsters can be serviced. 
    It would be SO much more sensible just to get on with building real power stations, be they nuclear, oil or coal.  Soon, a regular electricity supply is going to be the sole prerogative of the stinking rich, and/or the chosen few. 
    Can NO-ONE rid us of this troublesome Huhne


  14. John Horne Tooke says:

    “Peer reviewed study says current Arctic sea ice is more extensive than most of the past 9000 years”

    Why is the BBC not reporting this? It is written by scientists and peer reviewed.