Subject: your New Year message
I know sharks are very, very important to you and I concur with you that it is not right that we still treat them so cruelly and wastefully. It is strange – to me at least – that you write about this topic without mentioning that the EU’s common fisheries policy is the world’s most damaging rat’s nest of rules affecting fish stocks and sea conservation. But no matter, I know that the BBC rather likes the EU and regularly worships at its altar, so I understand why you brush that under the carpet and point the finger of blame in other directions.
May I respectfully raise other queries about your New Year Encyclical on the environment? First I wonder why you dismiss so disdainfully the concerns of Spanglerboy and JackHughes that in your environment beat, you are still a little obsessed with climate change and “emissions”? I know that like me, you are not a scientist, but there is accumulating evidence that is not hard to find that perhaps the AGW curve is not as uninterrupted as you have regularly made out. The Arctic Sea ice has not gone (in fact, according to the BBC’s own report, normally open sea lanes in the Arctic are, as I write, somewhat clogged by ice), ski resorts are not without snow, there is record snow, even in Japan, and, oh yes, despite firm predictions by the Met office back in 2000 that snow would become a rare event, we have had three consecutive winters of arctic temperatures far removed from what the Met Office’s £33m supercomputer predicted and we have just experienced the coldest UK December in 120 years. Some are calling for an inquiry, but I know you and your BBC colleagues don’t think that such views are important enough to report. I could go on, but I don’t want to give you too much to digest. I know you probably view all this as just “weather” and further evidence that AGW is about to kill us all, but I still think that – given the highly influential save-the-world role that you believe you have – you might just think for one moment that the BBC-supported “consensus” on this topic is looking increasingly creaky, and you might at least occasionally break the habits of a lifetime and mention maybe a smidgeon of the rather interesting and persuasive evidence that does not agree with your own views.
After all, you do claim to be a journalist. When I was trained by the BBC, in what is now the Langham Hotel in a very different era, we were taught to cast our net more widely than speaking to people who agreed with us. Instead, you come out with strangely confrontational platitudes like this:
I’m still seriously writing about global warming – do you seriously doing (sic, I think he missed out “think”) otherwise is an option, given the importance of the issue?
I’m writing this because – with the greatest respect – this seems to me to be prima facie evidence that you yourself seem to be elephantinely incapable of absorbing any other perspectives but those of greenie change-the-world activism. Could 2011 be the year that you change?
Yours sincerely,
Robin Horbury (the man you sought to sue)
It may well be -42 in China, but the BBC have just reported that in Southern Australia it’s the hottest it’s ever been since records began.
So is this what is to be expected in 2011 from the BBC, selected / approved AGW ?
Have they said anything about how much rain the Aussies are having? That’ll teach them for getting the abo’s to do rain dances to stop them losing the Ashes.
When Mr. Black is caught and eventually shoved, with his mates, in the pillory or stocks, bags I be amongst the first to hurl snowballs (accidentally wrapped around gravelly ice) at their thick ideological heads. Normally I abhor unnecessary violence, but sometimes, just sometimes my natural instincts are overtaken by sheer rage, exasperation and frustration…
Can we not send them, scantily clad, on the next expedition to “prove” that there’s no ice at the arctic?
I’m sure it was just as out of character for Roger Harrabin for wanting to punch James Delingpoe’s lights out for disagreeing with his views on global warming.
“…though he later apologized to (Mr Delingpole) saying he was jet-lagged and had confused me with Christopher Booker.”
Well, that makes it all right then!!
I’m somewhat less forgiving than you. When the civil war breaks out, I would like to be considered to lead a specialist squad. My team can track down socialists; particularly bbc employees; and i shall be only too pleased to issue the coup de grace. Each cull will be filmed, as was done for the ceascus in Romania and will be put on the bbc website, for all to see justice being done. (And since Stephen Pound, I think it was, on a recent Radio 4 programme, confirmed that the socialists had discussed ‘culling’ people with right wing brains, I can’t see how the socialists can object to this; to the victor the spoils.
Personally, I prefer democracy as a means to settle political disagreements.
The old anarchist slogan was “it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in” More true today as I there is hardly a shade of difference between what each side does (not to be confused with what they say should be done.
How does democracy help? Where can I vote for the ridding of our institutions of global warming placemen? Is the Met Office electable? Can Robert Napier be unchaired? No, he’s been given a new year gong by the Conservative (in name only) administration.
Can you suggest a better alternative to democracy?
As Churchill once observed: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
I share your frustration at the lack of democratic choice we have – moral pygmies and bankrupts on one hand (Tories, Labour, Lib-Dem), moral monstrosities on the other (BNP, Respect, SWP), but we still have the freedom to form a party with moral balast to seek support. Personally, I’m always egging on Melanie Philliips to do this. Now there’s someone whose political leadership I would have every confidence in following. She’s someone worth taking a bullet for for the good she can do the country.
The problem is they don’t.
Well, he is getting filleted by most commenters, which usually precedes a bit of permanent ‘watertight oversight’.
Really, I would dearly love a serious look by at least one credible, qualified, expert, professional journalist at the box-ticking alternative energy plans beloved of the cloud-cuckoo classes and the tangible deliverables generated so far, but one suspects he and his chums are more keen of looking anywhere but with some biodiversity obsession until the ‘cold snap’ passes… and they can pack they Hawaiian shirts and start planning the next catch-up with the various WWF Asst Directors of Cane Toad Climate Activism (Surrey branch) booking their flights to the next ‘conference’.
A prediction was made by a commenter (wonder who?) on Richard Black’s blog about an error in Black’s post:
Presumably this should read “US” rather than “UN”.
Indeed. One also presumes in terms of accurate reflection on BBC websites this clarification still remaining uncorrected means few internally read these posts and replies much.
The post is now four days old and it still says “both houses of the UN Congress”.
That’s one prediction that looks like being spot-on – unlike the sort those BBC experts provide.
And talking of the Derek Acorah of the BBC…Mark Mardell’s blog contains this from Mark:
My previous blog, as the BBC’s man in Europe, taught me one thing at least: your comments are key. I read them all, so please have your say.
He obviously doesn’t as I commented on one of his Murdoch posts back in August about his getting a name wrong – he called an American leftist (named John B Judis) John B Judas. It was never changed.
The BBC doesn’t really ‘do’ corrections. Part of the broadcast-only mindset, possibly.
And if it does, it doesn’t ‘get’ how to do them courteously and professionally.
Usually an unacknowledged stealth edit that gracelessly leaves the poor sod trying to help hanging out to dry if others don’t appreciate this unique facet of the national broadcaster’s abilities. Or another hasn’t cut and pasted the error to post in solidarity.
The current crop of those still open and/or not closed for comment or the school hols are littered with such fire & forget howlers, even when politely pointed out days ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/maggieshiels/2010/12/rethinking_the_world_of_books.html#P104263729
Amazing what £3.6B doesn’t get you.
Ha, even Chris Howard, the man Maggie Shiels was blogging about, requested a proper link. He got no more joy than you and the others.
Another day, another Mardell error, already pointed out by commenters on his blog. This time, he gets the name of America’s 40th president wrong (an ex-California governor):
Although one conservative magazine suggested that in his first terms Brown was more of a fiscal conservative than Regan…
Will this mistake be corrected?
‘Could 2011 be the year that you change?’ I think we all the answer to that!
Robin, just a suggestion as to identifying what really motivates our beeboids and their friends. I think just before Copenhagen, an old leftie, beloved of the beeboids, Tariq Ali, was quoted as saying it represented “a last chance to achieve wealth redistribution”.
A clever chap like you could probably track down the quote and either add it to the side bar of bbc gotchas, or use it as the basis for an article.
That platitudinous quote in Robin’s post captures so well the Beeboid mentality, an awful mixture of earnestness and stupidity. Don’t expect an intelligent answer or anything but tired repetition of trite sentiments and phrases like “the issue”. They are just a way of avoiding having to think or address the point that has been raised. Don’t expect clarity of thought or expression. Don’t expect serious engagement with the questions raised. Don’t expect anything much really from such duds except more of that deadening earnestness and stupidity.
What is really worrying is that as far as i can see there is not one Politician who questions all this Global Warming nonsense. WE`ve just committed ourselves to spending £150 billion changing to useless Green Energy like Windfarms. Surely someone has the balls to say “before we commit ourselves to this shouldn`t we make sure the science is sound?”
No, that’s irretrievably locked away in the “too difficult” cabinet.
Anyway, the science IS sound – their tame “scientists” and meteorological “experts” said so, and their masters in the European Fourth Reich also said so, so it must be right…
Douglas Carswell isn’t too enamoured of it
Well said, Robin.
Needless to say, the following report about the waste of colossally expensive UK wind farms is not from BBC-Greenpeace lobbyists.
In fact, the following report is just the sort of report which BBC Greenpeace lobby censors in the interests of its selective ‘science’:
“Wind farms becalmed just when needed the most”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8234616/Wind-farms-becalmed-just-when-needed-the-most.html
Just think all the money being spent on the word of just 75 scientists.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6939&linkbox=true&position=4
Black is an opportunist who is perpetuating the myth to keep his bank balance healthy. The AGW theory is deeply flawed and the sooner the perpetrators of this scam are prosecuted for gaining money by deception the better.
Black and the BBC will not change. Harrabin persuaded the BBC to adopt a policy of wholehearted support for the theory. The evidence to back it up has over the years become weaker and weaker and for the BBC to now suddenly start to live up to their charter on impartiality would leave Harrabin and Black humiliated. This is Blacks way to fight back against a growing sceptical public and he will continue to do so until he is removed by the BBC hierarchy. This will take some time as the BBC look after their activists.
This “debate” has never been about science but politics and money
A PS for Robin’s message. How’s that 1997 prediction about sea levels doing Mr Black? We’re nearly half way there now.
“The seas could rise by up to a metre in 30 or 40 years’ time. That might not sound much but it could lead to whole nations disappearing beneath the waves.”
(If you think Black has learned a lesson about alarmist hype over sea levels take a look at the photos on his report from Cancun last month.)
Incidentally, I see the BBC has replaced its Green Room, which hasn’t been updated since September, with a combination of Earth News and a new BBC blog:
“The Green Room has taken upon itself a new and slightly different mission. Rather than commissioning comment and opinion articles on environment-related issues, we will scour the web with the aim of bringing you the most interesting and thought-provoking environment stories, comment and analysis we can find on other sites.”
The range of “thought-provoking environment stories, comment and analysis” chosen by the Green Room blog will be interesting to see. The blog doesn’t appear to allow comments.
[Happy New Year to all, btw.]
‘Here it is in its new guise.’
As you say, it seems an unwelcome return to ‘broadcast only’.
All things considered, it is unwelcome but not surprising that the BBC sees merit in not getting back to simply reporting things plainly as they happen, but prefers the option of seeking ever newer ‘guises’.
Unique.
Apropos of BBC crap journalism and, worse, its possibly deliberate lying in the noble cause of warmism, EU Referendum notes
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/01/crises-in-east.html
that in the BBC news item concerning Russian ships stuck in thick ice in the Sea of Okhotsk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12099928
the BBC informs us of “ice . . up to 30cm (12 inches) thick“.
The BBC has acknowledged TASS as its source for this news.
The cited TASS report
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15833955&PageNum=0
notes that the rescue ship is “struggling its way through the two-meter-thick ice” to the stranded vessels.
It’s customary, of course, for climate “scientists” to “adjust” embarrassing data one way only: the BBC apparently has the same cavalier attitude to facts.