The Steve Jones report, excellently analysed here by James Delingpole, is nothing more than a licence from the eco-loons who run the BBC to allow its reporters to continue their torrent of climate change lies. What’s happened is an immediate ratcheting up of the invective, and the unrestrained use of warmist so-called “consensus” to back it up. Here, for example, as a taster of what’s in store, Richard Black invokes lefty “comedian” Bill Maher (a natural favourite of the corporation)as part of the evidence to show that the nasty, ignorant US population are idiots for being doubtful about climate change, that the current heatwaves in the US are the result of out of control “feedback loops” in escalating warming, and the Arctic ice is melting. Where have I heard that before…? Oh, yes, here. And then as a platform for the main political point – to argue that US use of coal for energy must stop and be replaced by those nice, clean, windfarms.

AS usual, he ignores, cocks a snook at, doesn’t give a fig about, balancing information such as this, which shows that such heatwaves are not unprecedented or unusual in America, and that deaths from cold weather far outweigh those from heat.

It’s a textbook example of what – as I said in my previous posting on the Jones travesty – has been going on at the corporation for years, so what Mr Black is doing here is effectively gloating – and warning that much, much more is in store. For that reason, I don’t see the point in continuing to analyse the output of the BBC. If people think the Corporation is biased, and garner evidence for it, the so-called trustees hire an “expert” who agrees with their worldview and sanction him to pour bile and vitriol on opponents. Then, fingers in ears and in unison, they chant: “We’re right, your are wrong…na,na,na,na, na”. The BBC is now our very own version of the Pravda of old – no more, no less.

Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to GLOATING BLACK

  1. My Site (click to edit) says:

    The comments are going well for Mr. Black, though.

    Well, the opinionated ones.

    The one using facts… not so much.


  2. My Site (click to edit) says:



  3. cjhartnett says:

    Quite right Robin.
    A complete waste of time looking for any scientific basis to attack the BBC/MSM…what they call science(nothing that we`d recognise as such) is “settled”-so back under the tog tarpaulins they go!
    Don`t disturb them-just keep posting on Plimers, Bookers, Delingpoles and comedy helps.
    The local “wind turbine” not only produced nothing when it was cold…but a few weeks later, it fell onto a parked car after the wind had upset it!
    Comedy is the future-best sending anything to the BBC in cartoon form!


  4. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Well said, Robin.  Please keep up the good work.


  5. Deborah says:

    Yes please keep posting Robin – I have to know what is really happening and not just what the BBC tells me.


  6. Umbongo says:

    “The BBC is now our very own version of the Pravda of old – no more, no less.”

    Slightly different and probably worse:  at least with Pravda you knew – and certainly its readers knew – that the “news” and opinions conveyed comprised approved (or just made-up) facts and official (ie CPSU) policy.  I doubt that even as much as 1% of its readership actually took what was published in Pravda as “impartial”.  The BBC is similar in that, in its coverage of climate change (among others), it conveys approved facts and suppresses or twists inconvenient facts and opinions (hence those expressing a sceptic view are described as “climate change deniers” rather than “CAGW deniers”).  Sadly, however, I suspect that – although they’re probably bored rigid by the whole thing – a large proportion consumers of the BBC product still believe in the impartiality of the BBC generally and would consider that such impartiality would include its treatment of climate change.

    However, the BBC policies of institutionalised lying and support for dubious academic practices masquerading as science are its own.  That the BBC is prepared to do so might be welcome to all the major political parties but AFAIAA the BBC is not actually compelled to lie on behalf of this particular scam – or any particular scam – even if politicians would like them to.  The other side of the coin to this (admirable) absence of compulsion is that the BBC is free to make it up as it goes along – and does so.

    Essentially, the BBC is out of control or, rather, it’s out of our control – or anybody’s control – but chooses to act on behalf of the political class which is more or less dominated by the metropolitan left.  Accordingly, I doubt that any person who could be thought of as “conservative” – in contrast to a CINO – is now recruited by the BBC anywhere for any job (unless it’s cleaning the studio floor or the lavatories).  But forget about formal politics, whatever party a job applicant votes for, I imagine that expressing any doubts about the reality of CAGW, the wickedness of Israel, the wonder of Islam, the benefits of immigration or the maginificence of the European project would be the kiss of death to the chances of a job offer (or promotion).

    Coming back to RH’s posting: had Black been a journalist rather than a missionary, he would, for instance, have reconsidered his religious beliefs in the light of the revelations at East Anglia Tech.  No-one (literally no-one) has denied that the documents released into the public domain are genuine.  Moreover no-one who has read them extensively (or just restricted their reading to the most notorious) can realistically deny that scientific malpractice occurred and, for all we know, is still occurring.  But no, Black continues to preach his religion even more aggressively and intolerantly.  As RH implies, Black and the organisation which employs him are a disgrace to journalism and betray the pursuit of genuine science.


  7. George R says:

    “Steve Jones tells the BBC: don’t give ‘denialists’ so much air-time”

    (by Christopher Booker).


    “The real scandal of the BBC’s coverage of climate issues is that, journalistically, it has been so unprofessional. The little group of environmental correspondents most obviously responsible for pushing the BBC line inhabit a bubble in which they only report what they are told by other supporters of the orthodoxy.

    “To anything outside that increasingly claustrophic bubble they remain oblivious, and thus have missed out on one of the most important scientific stories of our time. In this way they reinforce the folly of our politicians, bent on policies so misconceived and so costly that they threaten the country with an unprecedented act of economic self-destruction. ”


  8. John Horne Tooke says:

    When people use the term “deniers” in a report on climate change they no longer deserve the title of scientist. Nobody denies climate change, people question the AGW theory.  
    He may conclude in his report that the BBC should push more AGW papers but the labeling those who think there are other explanations for climate change as “deniers” is a political statement , full stop.  
    “Mr” Steve Jones is now an activist and not a scientist.


  9. John Horne Tooke says:

    I wonder why they could publish this report and not the one by Balen?


  10. George R says:

    ‘EU Referendum’ on Christopher Booker’s critique of Jones and BBC:

    “No need to argue”