More digging…it turns out that the outfit that was hired by the BBC trustees to monitor BBC output in connection with the Steve Jones whitewash report on science coverage was the Imperial College Science Communications Group (SCG). Surprise, surprise, they are active in promoting climate change communications. And you can read SCG report co-writer Alice R.Bell’s guide to indoctrinating children about climate change on her blog, here.
It seems that the SCG’s conclusions about the BBC’s news coverage of climate change reporting were based primarily on the analysis of just one (yes one) news story, the report of the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review into the “climategate” affair over the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in July 2010 (p75 et sequi in the report). The main concern of the group is that Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation was given too much space and misleadingly introduced as an expert in climate when he is an athropologist. In fact, other experts were given far more airtime, but no matter; and Benny Peiser is more qualified to comment on climate change than Richard Black and Roger Harrabin are to write about it. The SRG don’t say in so many words that overall, coverage of the Climategate story was wrong, but their haughty disdain and disapproval for allowing such a man and such a group airtime is written between the lines in 72point.
It is astonishing that the analysis of one news item about climate change should form the evidential basis of a major review of science coverage. Had the SRG done sustained monitoring of coverage of greenie issues on the website or the Today programme – for example – they would have found a picture of serial distortion and misinformation on an epic scale (as the David Vance example from today shows). Instead, they chose the one climate change story of 2010 where “sceptic” opinion could not be avoided, even by the BBC.
I really don’t know what the mindset of those inside the BBC bubble really is. We know that they have heard of the internet, yet they continue along the same old path of bygone ages where the public could be sold anything as long as no one else in the media blew the whistle. So they conduct obvious white wash analyses using blatantly biased “independent” agencies and consultants, publish the results and expect the public to unquestioningly lap up the results. The same can be said of the various Climategate “enquiries”.
Maybe I’ve answered my own question, maybe the vast majority of the public do lap up the results and the BBC know that the bloggers and, even, the bits of the MSM that (accidentally) don’t always follow the script (Daily Mail, Express) are just a flea on the back of the lumbering giant that is the BBC.
Maybe they are so enamoured of their focus groups, workshops and diversity stakeholder town hall meetings that they have no idea that (some) people have noticed that they are a bunch of charlatans.
Maybe they really believe that their “comedians” have “no political axe to grind”. After all, the BBC wouldn’t know which way round to sit on a metaphorical toilet without the aid of some sort of team-building-away-day-colon-awareness course.
I can only hope that their smug arrogance and/or stupidity will one day (soon) bite them in the arse. I am optimistic that it will.
My nephew (a first from Oxford so really should have learnt how to question) asked me sniggeringly ‘what my take on climate change was’. I replied that I hadn’t known what to believe until I spent time on the internet trying to find out the facts.
His response was that the concensus had been reached. Now where did he learn that I wonder?
“Consensus”: the mother of all lies. The big one: green kryptonite. Believers insist there is a consensus, because without that underpinning, they fear they will lose the argument on matters of substance.
It is sad but unsurprising lazy young people parrot this tosh. They have been told by their peer opinion-leaders only “bad people” question climate change. You know, the ones getting cheques from “big oil” or redneck tea-party sympathisers.
And any one wonders how the Nazis came to power? On the back of big lies.
it’s deliberate disinformation and the BBC should be accountble for it.
I see we have a game of climate-change Top Trumps. I give you a Nigel Lawson; you trump it with a George Monbiot.
Clearly the views of Steve Jones (PBUH), a geneticist who is on telly a lot, must carry greater weight than those of a mere social anthropologist and scepto-nutter like Benny Peiser. The BBC says so and the BBC is always right. Right?
Incidentally, if the BBC offered me £140,000 to pen a report on its science coverage, I’d probably tell them exactly what they wanted to hear.
As with just about anything concerning man-made climate change, just follow the money trail.
I am almost beyond caring, to be honest.
Thanks Robin. I didn’t get as far as reading the report appendix by SCG. The agressive tone of the main report put me off – with all the “denialist” insults and off-hand dismissal of sceptical voices.
TonyN, who made a polite and detailed submission to the review, has written an excellent post discussing the report here: http://www.harmlesssky.org/
Based on the content of the link, I can only conclude that (professor) Mr Jones is a climate deceiver. To whom does this man report and why has he not been reprimanded for his utterances?
I’ve stopped worrying about the eco nazis
This is for real, publushed last week in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations
This really the shark jumping moment for the Guardian and their global-warming-climate disruption-change eco-loon followers. The fact that this is published under the heading of “science” in the Grauniad gives an accurate indication of the lack quality control when it comes to stories supporting the global warming narrative.
It`s that phrase “Science Communications Group” that tells us all we need to know.
The science is the real meat-with blood and all-and the powerful and their Professsor HoneyDews won`t want us troubling our little heads with their funding and empire building issues.
So the science is put in the car seat at the back and parked somewhere out of sight or scrutiny.
No science to speak of…but look these pictures and projections. Then keep paying us in the hope that we can deal with all the hype and fears we can whip up…and “communicate” to you via the Harrabins and Harridans. They don`t come cheap either!
In parts of Africa, your steak costs more if it has already been pre-chewed for you…considered a sign of “affluence2 to pay the ladies to do it for you.
So it is with our scientific pap here…which is why we can`t build a Lady Di fountain or a pedestrian bridge…but ,boy can we wave wristbands and blow hard worldwide.
The Chinese are mightily impreesed I`m sure…
Keep up the good work, Robin.