There’s no doubt whose side the BBC is on in Julia Gillard’s attempts to force her country into economic suicide by taxing “carbon” output. Australia is a “worst polluter”, so of course such measures are right. A picture of horrendous, belching CO2 (actually, most likely steam, but never mind – the message has to be rammed home by the BBC thought police) has been carefully selected to show just how bad it is. Yes, opposition leader Tony Abbott is quoted and it is made clear that 60% of electors also oppose the measures, but the thrust of the story is that coal-guzzling Aussies must take their medicine and Miss Gillard is a saint.

Meanwhile, Richard Black continues his vicious campaigning to discredit the hated deniers. Here, in a pile of statistical gobledeygook and obfuscation, he turns his fire on that nasty rag the Daily Mail and mentions specifically a story carried last week by someone he calls Christopher Brooker which had the effrontery to challenge the idea that we would all be frying but for Chinese aerosol particles. I posted on the story last week to show how biased the BBC’s coverage was.

Actually, Mr Black, it is Christopher Booker. I’ve been reading his journalism and his books for more than 40 years, and I would venture to suggest that he knows more about his craft in his little finger than you do at all. Here, in case you missed it, is his latest piece on the zealotry that you espouse; I would also recommend you read this – his sharp, knowledgeable book on the massive scam that your are perpetrating with such venom. Next time, though, if you want to attack such targets, at least use your spellcheck. And show some respect.

Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to BLACK DISRESPECT…

  1. Craig says:

    He’s not even technically correct about Christopher Booker being a Daily Mail writer. He writes only very occasional one-off pieces for the Mail. As we all know, he’s a Telegraph columnist.  
    More inaccuracy from BBC reporter Richard Black.
    The highest-rated comment under Black’s piece points to another bit of disrespect, towards a U.S climatologist:

    7th July 2011 – 17:37
    Why the disrespectful reference to “Prolific commentators such as Judith Curry” when Dr Kaufman is consistently given his title.

    I assume you mean Professor Judith Curry?


    • Lloyd says:

      But the BBC have spent years promulgating the line (or should that be lie?) that the Mail is a racist, right-wing rag, which shouldn’t be taken seriously. So by falsely labelling Booker as a Daily Mail writer they immediately (in their own eyes) relegate him and his views to the “nutcase” category.

      And I don’t believe for one minute that Black wasn’t aware that Booker was firstly and formost an author and secondly a Telegraph columnist – it just blatant lies from Black.

      Black comes across as a bit of a buffoon, so mistake ridden are his articles – but it’s all just blatant lies and propaganda. I can’t even take him seriously anymore.


  2. My Site (click to edit) says:

    The deliberate mis-spelling of names is rather rife; I think it plays well with the sisters, along with dropping honourifics or qualifications of those one doesn’t like, whilst adding ‘Nobel prize-winning’ to anyone who writes a press release that ticks the narrative boxes.

    Don’t worry, there will be a stealth correction soon (maybe with a sulky note after this ‘outing”)… the BBC are rather good at them. A lot of practice lately.


    • Lloyd says:

      And it also – conveniently – makes it difficult for those who would wish to search the BBC News wesite for references to said person.


  3. Jeremy Clarke says:

    I do admire Richard Block’s tendency to have sly little digs at the flat-earthers who don’t fervently adhere to the belief that we are heading for MMGW Hell.

    Whenever a sceptic is quoted, Bluck’s tone is usually along the lines of, ‘sigh, well they would say that, wouldn’t they?’ He’s always quick to rebuff the nay-sayers yet allows his co-religionists free rein. Blick has made a token nod to ‘balance’ by including two paragraphs by heretics – Booker and GWPF – but the other 90 per cent of this tedious article is the usual advocacy.

    I don’t care about Mr. Blackie’s personal views; I am sure he is a very nice man. But all I ask is that he does at least try to be even-handed in his coverage and cut out the sarcy stuff, aimed at those who do not share his faith.


  4. Natsman says:

    Slightly OT, but I just read this comment about sea level rise by Lubos Motl on his own site, and thought it rather good.  Hope he doesn’t mind my reproducing it here:


    “…The real sea level rise will be of order 0-30 cm per century. You may invent some incredibly unexpected acceleration that gets you to 1 meter or 2 meters.

    You may invent a total melting of the Greenland ice – requires dozens of degrees of warming – to get 7 meters of sea level rise.

    Be my guest and melt all of Antarctica and you will get 25 extra meters. However, you need about 50 degrees Celsius of warming. Is 25 meters too little for you? Heat up the oceans towards 90 deg Celsius and expand them thermally so that the boiling oceans are higher. Or add kilometers of sea level by hitting another planet which is rich in ice. 😉

    Does it really make any sense to discuss these things? I don’t think so. But even if the sea level rise is 25 or 60 meters or whatever, there don’t have to be any “necessary” deaths. It’s just a fucking piece of territory lost to the ocean. It has happened millions of times in the history of the Earth. What’s the deal? Just move a little bit further away from the ocean. Cancel 1/2 of the territory of Florida. Such things may naturally happen in millions of years because of some brutal reasons but the idea that our CO2 will be doing something like that is from the sphere of insanity.

    I don’t think that discussion threads at serious blogs should be discussing such scenarios because they’re just dumb beyond imagination. The sea level rise will be below 50 centimeters per century and won’t really be noticeable at all…”


  5. NotaSheep says:

    You have to realise that to certain people on ‘the left’, anyone who writes for (or even reads) The Mail is beyond the pale and their opinions can be safely ignored. The amount if bile spewed (does one spew bile) at The Mail, its writers and readers, by comedians on the BBC is almost beyond belief. Of course the same comedians ignore the idiocy that The Mirror regularly publishes, let alone the bias displayed by The Independent and The Guardian.


  6. John Anderson says:

    In the articled Black seems to be claiming that he himself has been running some calculations – which of course prove that he has been right all along,  infallible.

    I simply do not believe that Black has run any such complex calculations.

    I surmise that he has turned to one of his AGW buddies and said “Hey,  i need to rebut some of the stuff flying around this week,  can you write some stuff for me on the technicalities of it all,  the calculations,  that I can include in an article?”      

    Because copy-and-paste is about the level of Black’s churnalism,  plus sneering at anyone who disputes AGW.


  7. John Horne Tooke says:

    Since when has it been Blacks lot to “prove” someone right or wrong. Journalists do not take part in the debate they report on it.


  8. John Horne Tooke says:

    Sent to the BBC  today

    ‘Can you tell me what qualifications Black has to make the following calculations:

    “To illustrate the point, I’ve been through a quick exercise using the approach that groups such as GPWF favour – and that Kaufmann’s research group adopted – of using annual temperatures rather than any kind of smoothed average, and looking for the temperature change over a decade.”

    For instance does Mr. Black hold any qualifications in statistics or mathematics to test a hypothesis put forward by a scientist?’


  9. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Nice one, Robin.  Richard the Evangelist needs to be called out for what he is.


  10. Phil says:

    The government is very keen on green taxes.

    The BBC is financed by the government.

    The government has frozen the BBC’s income for 6 years.

    Any dissent eco-matters from the corporation and that freeze could be longer.

    We can’t expect impartial reporting on green matters from the BBC. It toes the line of its paymaster to make sure the money keeps rolling in.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Chris Huhne did trumpet the results of “energy saving tax” with Marr this morning, meaning that one result of taxing non-green energy has been a reduction in energy consumption.  This is behavior control via legislation, so no wonder the BBC is in favor.  They firmly believe that something must be done even if we don’t know what’s actually causing the climate to change.  It’s too great a risk not to, you see.

      Reflects exactly the attitude espoused by Marr himself in the quote featured in the footer of this blog.


  11. John Horne Tooke says:

    “Every statement about what might happen if AGW were true is worthless Horror stories about the evil, wretched future that awaits us once the “tipping point” has been breached are not evidence for AGW. They are empty of any kind of proof. “Studies” that claim future awfulness due to AGW are inappropriately and disingenuously used to hint that AGW is true. This is naughty. This behavior is equivalent to the Tokyo scientist who solicits his government for a Godzilla-studies grant because of the havoc the old nuclear-fire breather could cause if he were real. That this grant is awarded is not evidence of Godzilla’s existence. ”

    This has been my point consistantly and this is where Black and his comrades are shown to be activists. There is nothing that Black prints that links CO2 to his “catastrophes”, nothing, zero, zilch.

    All through Blacks writings he uses the Association propaganda technique.

    “An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question.”


  12. Alfie Pacino says:

    Black must be only too aware of who Christopher Booker is; he’s been into Black’s ribs for some time.
    I suspect he’s creating mischief – exactly what we need in a so-called ‘scientific’ piece… pass the sick bag, Martha.


  13. Natsman says:

    For those who haven’t yet heard it, may I recommend this radio interview of Professor Lindzen.  He seems to be a doyen of common sense amongst those who are clearly losing their marbles:


  14. Cassandra King says:

    BBC biased? Shum mishtake shurly! No and dont call me Shirley 😀

    I see the legenday BBC impartiality is shining through in its latest BBC news report about the proposed Australian carbon(fraud)tax.

    We get prime soundbites from Gillard and the green(shirt) leader is over the moon and a full explanation that ‘polluters’ must pay for the ‘pollution’ they emit which we are promised will lead to a wonderful new dawn blah blah blah.

    Now obviously the viewer doesnt need to listen to the leader of the opposition or critics of the carbon(fraud)tax, all we get is a 4 second shot of a few demonstrators outside the Canberra parliament building. The viewer would only get confused if the BBC gave these denialists any air time and this is what these deniers really want, to sow confusuion in the minds of the masses so its the sacred duty of the guardians of the true faith to silence and misrepresent and sabotage and smear these deniers and anti social elements who must surely be in the pay of big oil.



  15. cjhartnett says:

    Having elevated Kevin Rudd to sainthood(he speaks Mandarin you know!), the beastly party that he led in weeping for assorted aborigines replaced him with Julia Gillard.
    The BBc therefore will slaver all over any ecoloons down under-shows that they`re on side with the project to gift wrap the world for the Chinese-and Kevin can tell them that “we surrender”.
    Think the ecoloons think that the Aussies can be the catalytic converter on the exhaust on planet earth. Geography is destiny!


  16. John Horne Tooke says:

    Shouldn’t Black be representing the views of the “nation” , well, yes its the Australian nation but the principle is the same.

    I’m sure Dr Gregory would agree with me.