Richard Black has posted yet another warmist homily, this time rubbishing the widely-reported claims here and here that a fall in solar activity could lead to a medium-term fall in global temperatures.

The claims originate from a warmist organisation and he can’t therefore use his usual ploy of shooting the messenger. So his first tactic is to say that the relevant paper is not yet “peer reviewed”. Not everyone in the science community has yet seen the paper and some don’t like it – so it might be suppressed. No doubt Mr Black is hoping that will happen.

Kick two is that he then points that the predictions “might not turn into reality”. Funny though, Mr Black rushes in to print as fast as his little legs will carry him when Phil Jones tells us that global temperatures are on the increase, or Greenpeace invent a cock and bull story for the IPCC that renewable sources will provide most of the world’s energy by 2050.

Kick three is that the sun’s activity would in any case have to fall more than the “man made contribution to the greenhouse effect”. Here, he descends yet again into blatant advocacy and puts a tendentious theory at the level of being beyond reasonable doubt Some people, Mr Black, outside your zealot’s bubble, don’t accept that the greenhouse effect is as important as you do. But of course that does not matter – the BBC has weighed scientific opinion, and has decided that the said “greenhouse effect” is as serious as any greenie wants it to be.

Kick four is that he reverts to his own authority. Mr Black reviewed solar activity four years ago and found that

• It is not the major issue on human timescales
• Any effect from modern changes in solar activity is likely to be dwarfed by greenhouse gas emissions and associated issues such as sulphate aerosols.

Well, Mr Black, all I can say is that David Whitenouse – unlike you a genuine scientist – reviewed your scientific endeavours recently and found them to be, well, lacking. Of course, you think more highly of your own efforts – otherwise you would not have invoked your own authority in this way – but I think I know who I would prefer to believe.

I’m getting bored with this – the litany of biased handling continues – and I won’t deal with every single point that I would challenge, including the perennial tiresome reliance on models that don’t prove a thing. But then, finally Mr Black invokes his usual trump quote card – evidence from a solar physicist who he believes shows beyond doubt that the predictions of cooling don’t count. It turns out that the said Joanna Haigh – surprise surprise – is a Met Office alarmist and an IPCC stooge who believes that CO2 warming will dwarf that of any sun cycle. That will be the same IPCC that publishes Greenpeace agitprop as fact.

I would expect better, even of Richard Black. This piece of writing stinks to high heaven for all the usual reasons and could have been compiled by a seven-year old climate change student.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Backwoodsman says:

    OT , but we got a nice hat tip on Guido for the dodgy Syrian lesbian story !


  2. George R says:

    So is this the ‘revised’ official BBC-greenie line: their man-made global warning isn’t happening – blame it on the sun?!

    “The Ice Age is coming… don’t panic!(by Richard Littlejohn)–dont-panic.html


  3. Roland Deschain says:

    One of the first things that struck me on looking at Mr Black’s article was a picture of an ice-bound Earth and the caption “The Earth may have been a “snowball” once but an imminent repeat seems unlikely“.

    I must have missed the bit when anyone suggested that this was going to happen.  Surely Mr Black isn’t trying to plant the idea that claims of cooling are so outrageous as to be easily dismissed…..  is he?

    And here’s another one. “So you can probably name a few organisations likely to pounce on this latest work as evidence that another cool period is coming, and that society’s logical response is to drill, baby, drill and burn, baby, burn like never before.”  Quite apart from the fact that I haven’t heard anyone say that, there’s a distinct feeling here of “Pot, kettle, Black”.


  4. Nick says:

    Then we have the ‘sun is cooling’ today. 

    The assumptuon is that the cool sun is abnomal, and not that the hot sun is abnormal. 


  5. Jeremy Clarke says:

    Richard Black:

    ‘So you can probably name a few organisations likely to pounce on this latest work as evidence that another cool period is coming, and that society’s logical response is to drill, baby, drill and burn, baby, burn like never before.”

    That is not reporting – that editorialising. Cut out the sarcasm, matey – you’re writing for the BBC, not the Friends of the Earth quarterly magazine.

    ‘The Register doesn’t disappoint, suggesting the solar cycle predictions will become “the science story of the century” and mean that the Earth is “heading into a mini Ice Age” – while the Daily Telegraph’s James Delingpole treats it as fact – “It’s official: a new Ice Age is on its way”.’

    Black reported Phil Jones’ ‘climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant’ story uncritically; he simply did not dispute one iota of what Jones said, nor did he offer an opposing voice. This was a done deal.

    Yet when the story about ‘solar activity’ breaks he does his best to debunk it, while having just a little dig at sceptics for treating it as fact. I suppose Black will undoubtedly claim balance because he at least reported it. Woo bloody hoo.

    As a serious journaist, he has a duty to report both sides of an argument fairly, not simply airily dismiss the views of those whom he clearly dislikes.

    As you say, Robin, this is advocacy, not journalism.


  6. My Site (click to edit) says:

    That is not reporting – that editorialising. Cut out the sarcasm, matey – you’re writing for the BBC, not the Friends of the Earth quarterly magazine. ‘

    Agreeing with the first sentence, the last rather highlights the meaning of ‘for’.

    He is paid by the UK public and at best writes at them…us; but he seems to view his audience of value to be a narrower band, and indeed does ‘write’ (if science-lite gibberish) for them, and a rather clear agenda position.

    Looking at the blog rating system results so far as a result of this, I sense a review of the like/dislike (at least in science/tech – the politics blogs/contributors can still deliver the righ… ‘correct’ results) option soon.

    Or watertight oversight.


  7. George R says:

    Beeboids: wrong on-  1.)ISLAM, 2.)wrong on IMMIGRATION, 3.) wrong on CLIMATE, wrong on…

     1.) they got it wrong on the ‘religion of peace’, but now have to accept the validity of analysis of e.g. Melanie Phillips’ ‘Londonistan’;

     2.) they got it wrong on the devastating impact of mass immigration, but now have to accept the validity of analysis of Sir Andrew Green at ‘Migrationwatch’;

    3.) they got it wrong on man-made global warning, and now should not only apologise to Christopher Booker, but get him as their climate consultant:
    “The climate change scare is dying, but do our MPs notice?”

    (Christopher Booker, Nov 2010).


  8. My Site (click to edit) says:

    When will these freaks realise that we don’t live in a synthetic world.


  9. ltwf1964 says:


    I know this flase prophet and his tedious made up religion can be quite tiring and boring,but I think it’s important that you keep highlighting how complete unhinged he is

    quite apart from informing us,it gives us a right good laugh at how totally mental it all is


    • ltwf1964 says:


      before dotty and scuzz the fly-by-night b-bbc spelling police jump on another major flaw on the blog   😉


  10. joseph sanderson says:

    The propagandist seeks to change the way people understand an issue or situation for the purpose of changing their actions and expectations in ways that are desirable to the interest group. Sound like anyone you know who work at the BBC?.

    Mr Blacks continuous attempts to censor information which shows evidence that is contrary to his beliefs, should be challenged at every possible moment, clearly he is incapable of accepting opposing points of view. 

    what I detest the most about his musings are the loaded & emotive terms he uses to try and show the goodness of subjects that he is passionate about (Greenpeace, AGW etc) which in my opinion show his bias and also show up his prejudices when he is confronted with views that both challenge and ridicule his viewpoint.

    The man is a clear example of the dangers of ”Mileau Control” (e.g  tactics that control environment, human communication through the use of social pressure and group language; such tactics may include dogma, protocols, innuendo, and slang) in which he and his fellow eco warriors (cult) class us mere mortals as less valuable and therefore our opinions do not matter, which may go some way to explaining why Mr Black will not accept any evidence which contradicts his Raison d’être


  11. Natsman says:

    I think that Harrabin and Black are hell bent in their joint quest to make us believe black is white. Neither of them are skilled in prestidigitation, and must each be aware that they fail miserably in their attempts to convince us all that what isn’t happening, is, and what is happening, isn’t.

    I am sure that although a percentage of the general BBC-inflicted public may think that the sky is falling, and fear roasting and drowning from predicted warming, the majority are well aware of the scam derived from alarmist AGW forecasts, and take this rubbish with a pinch of salt – especially if the comments in the on-line national press are anything to go by.

    However, still the attempts at indoctrination to this abysmal religion continue, and will do until some enterprising (and sensible) person pulls the plug. Unfortunately, there is no-one with the strength of purpose and wisdom to do just that. So the drivel will continue.

    The shame is, that an “independent and unbiased” broadcasting medium, for which the British people are forced to pay, on pain of imprisonment upon default, should take on board such a dubious and obviously false agenda, and foster it as if it is factual and incontrovertible, and something that we should all unquestioningly subscribe to.

    It’s wrong, sinister, and in my honest opinion, disgraceful.


  12. Nick Ricketts says:

    I’d given up on the BBC for news or science reporting because of it’s agenda. Not very hidden or subtle in Black’s article. Discovering your blog has ‘forced’ me to look at the BBC again. And it hurts! This is not balanced science reporting, only environmental reporting in a ‘Greenpeace friendly’ context. For factual reporting on this topic Mr Black should take a look at the GWPF press release at:
    or John Coleman’s TV report at:

    ‘Paint it Black’ has a new meaning for me!


  13. Phil says:

    Black’s work highlights the dangers of having a government funded news service.

    When the government is pro-climate change and is eager to raise taxes on the back of it we can’t be sure of the motives, independence and impartiality of a man who essentially paid by the government to report on the matter.


  14. David Preiser (USA) says:

    A reminder of Black’s utter dishonesty with himself and his audience:

    ‘Warmist’ attack smacks of ‘sceptical’ intolerance

    It seems that something new, and not altogether welcome, may be happening in the politicking over climate change.

    I have written before of the orchestrated villification that comes the way of climate scientists from some people and organisations who are unconvinced of the case for human-induced climate change – “sceptics”, “deniers”, as you wish.

    Journalists, including your humble correspondent, receive our fair share too.

    This week, for the first time, I am seeing the same pattern from their opponents.

    “For the first time”, in Sept. 2010. Even though he knew for a fact that his colleague Roger Harrabin had already edited one of his own pieces in response to this exact kind of criticism from Jo Abbess two years before.

    But this is, at least in my experience, the first time that “warmers” – those who, like Dr Romm, believe climate change is taking us to hell in a handcart and who lobby for more urgent action on the issue – have resorted to the internet equivalent of taking banners onto the street in an attempt  to influence reporting of the issue.

    A bold lie, right out in the open.

    I am wondering, therefore, whether it does presage the start of something – whether it is now going to be routine for those of us who attempt to report on climate change objectively to be on the receiving end of barrages of critical mail, stimulated by bloggers with a definable agenda, whenever we write something that does not tally with their agenda.

    And there it is.  If you think he’s got it wrong, it’s not because you have a vaild argument but only because he’s said something that goes against your personal agenda.  Has he ever admitted to listening to any “debate”?  No, it’s all dismissed as ‘sceptics’ and ‘denial’ and not honest debate.


  15. Cassandra King says:

    “This week, for the first time, I am seeing the same pattern from their opponents.” 

    That sentence is very revealing isnt it?

    Fo years the CAGW cultists have waged a poisonous smear and bullying jihad against “deniers”. Possibly the most sustained vitriolic and highly organised hate campaign since the 30s.

    The BBC are experts at projecting their own crimes onto their enemies, airbrushing history and rewriting it in the most shameless way imaginable.

    Alarmist believers began the hate campaign, they called us deniers/denialists and they hurled the abuse and the insults and tried to marginalise, smear and demonize sceptics.

    Victim when it suits, the bullying kid all of a sudden weeps and cries and blames others when caught.


  16. JX says:

    And let us not forget that the BBC’s “ethical” pension fund is heavily invested in corrupt greenslime eco-wackery, as documented by Robin here.

    Worth repeating at every opportunity.

    The BBC. Moralists by nature. Bureaucrats by inclination. Tyrants by inevitability. “It’s what we do.”


    • Cassandra King says:

      The only good news is that the slime lost a lot of money, this will of course be plundered from the thug enforced taxation but if fewer people actually paid their licence it would hit these slime merchants where it hurts most, in their pockets.