Here, Richard Black sets out to mount what he sees as a balanced discussion of the much-mulled-over disagreement between Eric Steig and Ryan O’Donnell about the Antarctic climate record. He fails miserably, first by firmly nailing his colours to the mast of the warmist approach of Mr Steig, and secondly for his sneering, patronising assertion that he – unlike bloggers – bases his observations and reporting on “peer-reviewed” papers. Putting aside the rather major point that the central issue of the Steig-O’Donnell spat was that Mr Steig was a so-called peer reviewer who sought to block the publication of Mr O’Donnell’s paper (thus highlighting yet again what a warmist-rigged snakepit the whole peer-review system is), it also shows that Mr Black’s stance is based at core on smug, holier-than-thou hectoring. He is clearly having a swipe at those he perceives as his hated, inferior, right-wing enemies, such as the redoubtable James Delingpole – who published this searing analysis of the O’Donnell saga. Who would you trust most?
MOST TRUST?
Bookmark the permalink.
Incorrigible. He’ll never change his stance – he’ll take it with him to the grave, come hell or high water. And now, it seems, in addition to all the other unreadable, meaningless crap we see on food labels, we have to endure the “carbon footprint” er, “value” of everything.
This bandwagon rolls on regardless of the facts. The “message” WILL be got across at all costs, even if the “message” is untrue.
That’s “even though”. Otherwise, spot on.
Except Black has shown before that at least some of his “reporting” is based on emails he gets from Michael Mann. No peer-reviewed anything in those cases.
His blogs, and the threads they inspire, have descended into the realms of farce, or tragic-comedy at least.
Whilst I admire some who remain around to try and correct the utter, cherry-picked, water-tight as a leaky bucket tripe he ‘reports’, they end up inevitably in a death spiral with Black/AGW groupies who can only bang on about the climate changing, when no one disputes is does, and then get into the realms of pram toy lobbing, hissy fits or hypocritical moral high-grounders, which usually herald a closing, as the author and mods see a way out of more hole-digging.
I’d say this ‘un might do it:
83. At 05:49am on 20 Feb 2011, simon-swede wrote:
If nothing else, the posts here illustrate to perfection Richard’s comment: “So much febrile heat; so little light.”
Really inspiring. Not.
If a tad free on irony.
The careers of David Bellamy and Johnny Ball have been nigh on ruined because of people like Black, who smear anyone that dare question the global warming argument.
Johnny was booed off-stage a while ago for suggesting climate change was not man-made, and has been hounded ever since. Bellamy once said on a BBC TV programme, I forget which, that cars are not going to go away. Since then he has never appeared on a the BBC.
This is what happens when you step out of line with modern BBC orthodoxies. In the eighties, we were told that AIDS was the biggest threat to all of us, and anyone who dissented was branded a homophobe. Question the extremes of Islamism these days and the BBC will mark you down as a racist and an ‘Islamophobe’. Oppose the EU, and the BBC will treat you like a swivel-eyed xenophobic bedlamite.
Questioning climate change is now highest on the list of forbidden opinions. Black and his ilk regularly paint sceptics as idiots or in the pay of oil companies.
Oddly enough those who claim to be the most in favour of democracy: liberals, socialists and left-wing columnists, are the least tolerant of other viewpoints. Why indulge in debate when you can smear, threaten, bully, misrepresent or sack? Why debate when you can demonise?
The BBC / Black mentality is that of the Brownshirts. And yet all the while that they gleefully stifle dissent, the political Left has created the illusion that they and they alone naturally inhabit the moral high ground. You gotta admire their nerve.
The only time i associate the word trust with the BBC these days is the coven of complicit clowns in the mis-lablelled ‘Trust’.
Whoever the BBC, and most who are associated with it, speak for, it is not me. But I may be in a minority. Who knows/
When will there be a proper accounting of fair representation?
I suspect the results may be illuminating. If awkward for Aunty.