Via Bishop Hill
“Remember Paul Hudson,the rogue weather man at the BBC who doesn’t do ‘consensus’ and who upset the’gang’ when he noted that there had been no warming since 1998…
from hacked CRU email:
‘Michael Mann wrote in answer:
“extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. itsparticularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job).from What I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might beappropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s uphere?” ‘
He’s been at it again and thrown some cold water over the overheating believers(and I note from a BBC news report this morning that with sea levelsinexoriably rising due to AGW our sea shore is eroding terribly fast)…..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/10/met-office-finally-wakes-up-to.shtml
‘For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solaractivity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.
Perhaps the art of weather forecasting has become so dominated bysupercomputers, and climate research so dominated by the impact of man onglobal climate, that thoughts of how natural processes, such as solarvariation, could influence our climate have been largely overlooked, until veryrecently.
This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As oneleading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now nolonger taboo. And about time, too.’
The BBC is probably shocked that rising sea levels are caused by the moon!
They’re not the only ones…
I had posted the link to Paul Hudson last night.
H/T ??? !
Hudson’s job will be on the line shortly. Will they censor him or punish him or fire him? Surely this kind of rogue heresy can’t be allowed to continue for much longer. Before praising him too much, though, let’s also recall that Hudson sat on the CRU emails for more than a month. Or was instructed to do so.
Still, it’s nice to see the BBC finally allow this to be discussed, even if it’s buried on a mere weatherman’s blog. I wonder what Hudson’s science qualifications are compared to Black or Harrabin? Piers Corbyn still not seen as worthy of an interview becaue of his view on another subject entirely.
Hudson definitely has a formal and relevant science qualification. Black and Harrabin definitely don’t.
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king ?
The fact that the BBC allow mere journalists to have an opinion on science or any other area of expertise, economics, defence etc. just demonstrates the total lack of professionalism of this wretched organisation.
It seems like in this case, the one-eyed man is kept below stairs by the blind leaders.
No, Paul Hidson did not sit on ALL the ClimateGate emails. He was sent just the couple addressed to him.
Hudson is one of the good guys. As was David Whitehouse.
Come in, David Gregory ???
John,
David Gregory, like all Beeboids and their supporters will just come in when they think they can score a cheap point. At the end of the day they are cowards !
David Gregory is better than that, but – with one exception, also involving Hudson and this very subject – he’s stated that he won’t get into anything about specific colleagues.
I have to disagree David. Its not about his collegues. A genuine scientist would not put up with the rubbish spouted by the likes of Black.
Gregory never comments on science. He is the kind of scientist who comes to scientific truths by sitting down with Harrabin and his like for a chat. Lets face it why would a scientist actually work for the BBC if they were any good. Its not exactly a challenge.
JHT,
Spot on ! Why would a real scientist take money from the BBC ? Gregory just takes the bribes !!
Yes indeed. Today he agrees with his collegues and if they change their mind — he will agree with his collegues. If all the scientists were like that we would never have had the Age of Enlightenment. I should think that every great scientific discovery came about by not agreeing with collegues.
JHT, Gregory used to debate the whole Global Warming thing fairly robustly, but eventually got tired of it and lost interest. But in this case, if he comments on the relevant science, he’s also on some level making a comment about one of his colleagues, which he said he doesn’t want to do.
“Gregory used to debate the whole Global Warming thing fairly robustly, but eventually got tired of it and lost interest. “
I remember David as most of it was with me (under a different name). He did not lose interest – he could not answer the questions. I wish I had kept the answers for prosperity. He did not once mention his collegues then. He just seemed to believe anything that came out of Gores followers mouths regardless of evidence.
I also made the link to Pachauri and his vested interests long before the blogs picked up on it. It was during the time Archduke used to post here.
I think like hippiepooter, who has a soft spot for Radio 5 you also think that Gregory is different from the rest of the biased lot at the BBC. I don’t doubt he is quite a likable chap personally but belonging to the corrupt organisation can turn your head. It really is money for “press releases” when it comes to “global warming” . No thinking is required.
JHT, perhaps you’re not aware of the different times I’ve pressed Gregory recently, or made a baiting comment in case he was lurking, on the matter of Piers Corbyn. His excuse is always the same: even if Corbyn might be right about one thing, he is discredited entirely and not worth the BBC’s time because of some other statements about earthquakes. I objected to that, but got nowhere with it.
Gregory also tried to comment on other issues back in the day, but was always dragged back into Warming. He clearly has Warmist beliefs, and I agree that he couldn’t answer all the questions posed to him. But I figure as he’s the only Beeboid who dares appear here, he’s allowed to get tired of dealing with the same thing over and over again. And he also objected to other things. In any case, he did recently post a criticism here about a previoius Hudson piece, then left it alone after he realized it went against his supposed rule.
I also think it’s worth a tiny amount of respect that he doesn’t come here with venom or drive-by insults, like so many edgy comedians and others have. I’m sure he gets lots of mileage laughing at us when he’s among other Beeboids, but that’s life.
I’ve ‘liked’ that (Dr. G is polite…mostly, but do recall he also can stray, and seems to forget that), but..
‘then left it alone after he realized it went against his supposed rule’
This is the dilemma that the BBC, and many staff, face. But also abuse.
Often things are initiated that end up in places that are hard for them to to finish.
Recently I posted frustartion here with being modded for the nth time, with no justification. I also complemented this with a post on my twitter feed.
Hence it came as some surprise to find myself addressed there directly by Dr. Gregory.
Notwithstanding pondering the mechanisms and intentions that caused him to track me down there of all places, it was an interesting evolution.
Of course, the first was a question. Then a raft more.
I answered all, whilst poniting out this was not often the case in return.
To his credit, he answered a couple, but then went very quiet on or avoided others.
We then moved to email, which is much better than blogs as no censorship, or twitter which is silly to try and debate upon. Interesting, productive, but ultimately spinning in one place. I think the intention was to get me to change my views based on beliefs, whilst I was sticking to facts and getting nowhere. Hence deadlock.
Sadly, my last counter has remained unanswered.
Again, to be fair, he may just be busy again, but I did pop in a lot of stuff that really warranted answers beyond “I can’t comment’ and ‘they are 3rd parties’, ‘it’s too expensive’ etc, especially when this exchange was initiated by him.
So David, if you are out there, I am more than happy to continue.
The Newsnight mods seem not to have a problem with the word ‘munchkin’, which you tried to suggest was worthy of a referral (even when not about the BBC or any other poster, but solar salesmen who do not know much about solar). And I am keen to discover why, as a licencee fee payer, I am held to a standard using that word, when your colleagues are not, on national broadcast and especially twitter.
I accept the interest is there. And admire the lion’s den courage in going into often hostile territory to debate. But I do the same, as do others here, elsewhere, and politely. Yet seldom do we get much slack cut for sticking to our guns. Let’s face it, it is an addiction, and the thrill of the exchange is what draws one to comment as opposed to any ‘service’ duty.
If you initiate a a debate, it is only fair to see it through.
You did not initiate this one, and I see the problems inherent in dealing with some of the issues if you did. But reaching out for cherries or strawmen can infuriate, when there are plainly fair issues to offer an opinion on. Plus, surely anything here surely is as free of ‘representing the BBC’ as any tweet that has that ladled in the bio?
But, please, if you do venture back proactively, please be aware that demanding only answers when not being prepared to do so in return can look a bit ‘unique’.
And on matters of modding, the BBC is withouit any integrity. Hence those who work with its system, getting others referred knowing they will be protected, are really only making the cases for censorship levelled against them stronger.
In commenting, as much as running an in-theory ‘free’ forum, you can’t have it all ways. And if the desire is to have forums, then you can’t suddenly hide behind rules and budgets and time when it veers off narrative. I now have a large file, applying only to my personal expereinces, where the BBC does not seem to have appreciated that when you post, you can not only cut and save that, but if published save that too. Plus BBC authored works. So I have a few outright lies nailed, carried out in the comfy belief that things can’t be proved. They can. And the BBC complaints system is rotten to the core, up to Helen Boaden and beyond. I am struggling to see why I am compelled to pay such an institutionally bent service outfit.
If you can’t do you job well… including… especially fairly… don’t start, and have the grace to give up and admit if circumstances intrude.
But as we all know, the BBC pulling its few, eroding means of exchange would be a gift to those worried about the propaganda gift that is ‘broadcast only’, so rigged and flawed seem the attrition means opted for to make folk give up.
Things is, many will not. I am one.
And until I get fair answers to fair questions, I will keep on asking.
And while watertight oversight, referall, house rules and closed for commments may seem solutions within the bubble, once outside silence is not always golden.
There is no reason that I can see to whitewash him. If he had apologised for an unprovoked hit-and-run personal attack on me, he would deserve a smidgeon of respect but he didn’t despite being pulled up on it by people here. I am glad that there are a few people at least who know what he is like.
It is less important that a reporter have a science degree than that he should have intelligence and ability; a desire to know and inform; commitment to facts and telling the truth; and integrity in dealing with people.
Grant sums him up well. Goes in for personal attacks – hit and run, of course – and won’t respond when challenged or stand and fight. Spiteful and petty. Thinks the world owes him a living and special privileges. Fiiiiiiiiiiiight >:o
I remember Gregory always making a big deal out of his physics PhD while disparaging the likes of Melanie Philips for having the audacity to express an opinion on the whole climate scam, even though is was based on that of respected scientists. Melanie Philips never pretended to be a scientist while Dr Gregory does!
Gregory is not a physicist, as in someone who does physics, he is a BBC journalist. Dr Gregory is what Sir Isaac Newton would have called a “smatterer”. But that never stopped him lording over others, as though they should all defer to him.
As regards “climate change”, Dr Gregory was never qualified to comment on matters such as the Hockey Stick fraud. He is not and never has been a statistician. Neither has he ever specialized in any of the the specific issues the Hockey Stick concerns. But I digress – that whole shebang has long fallen apart in spite of the inane prattling that used to pass for his ‘debate’ on the subject at the time.
Paul Hudson is the weather presenter on my local BBC news programme, Look North. He generally plays it straight, and doesn`t say anything regarding Global warming one way or the other. Also, he does take the time to personally reply to email questions regarding the weather!
Something of a rarety at the beeb me thinks, and he can, be daringly (for a BBC employee) un-PC when he feels like it.
These climate change obsessives refuse to see the obvious. They remind me of an old gag. A man went to his optician to complain about his new glasses. ‘I can’t see very far’.
The optician took him outside into the street and pointed up. ‘What do you see up there?’
‘The sun’.
‘Well how much bloody further do you expect to see?’
More evidence of how the warmists pull the puppet Beeboids’ strings and put pressure on them to toe the line.
According to his wikipedia entry (I know I know) Hudson “has a first-class degree in Geophysics and Planetary Physics from the University of Newcastle”
I couldn’t find Black’s wikipedia entry – if he has one – but there is no evidence on any BBC or other website that I have visited that he has any scientific qualifications at all. He is, of course, qualified in tendentious biased journalism but we all knew that.
” A successful journalist must be able to “look at a situation and remove [their] own prejudices. Good journalism is about finding out the facts,” she says. “You need to be curious and open minded” and be prepared to ask “sharp and penetrating questions.””
Who said that. Hint : DNA
http://www.lcc.arts.ac.uk/people-and-profiles/alumni-profiles/helen-boaden-profile/
Its funny they know the theory but cannot put it into practice.
Her ‘The Edtors’ post on that got pulled pretty soon once the referalls and modding couldn’t cope with minds open in ways not deemed suitable.
Always amazes me that the sun has been pretty much dismissed in climate discussion, you could call it the big yellow elephant not quite in the room.
Let’s hope they don’t take Hudson out and shoot him.
doing a great job eh? lmao @ u
the moonbats are starting to fall like flies
Al Gore kicked out of the Global Warming Club
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/43985
whos next 🙂
Awesome.
“So the science is not there yet. And without the science, we really have no logical reason to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which by the way is measured by whom? Is anyone double-checking the measurements? Measure twice, cut once.”
Exactly
Wrong kind of Gaurdian on the line?
im quite sure richard black has a degree in english, i googled his name and came up with this, it appears that richie has a second job reporting onthe UN Commission on Sustainable Development for some organisation called the stake holder forum
Richard Black
Richard Black is an environment correspondent with BBC News, working primarily for the website. He has held this post for about four years, following a long spell as science correspondent with World Service and a shorter one covering environmental issues for BBC national radio. Prior to that he produced and presented radio programmes covering science, environment and health, including co-founding the World Service strand One Planet, which marries environment and development issues. He has reported from major events such as the 2002 UNAIDS conference, 2005 UN World Summit, 2006 and 2008 UNFCCC conferences and the 2008 IUCN World Conservation Congress. He writes the BBC’s environment blog Earth Watch. Richard is married with two daughters and lives in London.
http://www.stakeholderforum.org/index.php?id=home1
http://www.stakeholderforum.org/index.php?id=theteam
richard co-founded the “World Service strand One Planet, which marries environment and development issues”
who would have thought such a thing 😛
Harrabin and Black are activists. Full stop. They have no credabilty as journalists. They certainly do fulfill the definition of journalists quoted by Boeden above.
Only a corrupt organisation would tolerate it. The BBC have the nerve to attack Murdoch for phone hacking. Without the BBC people like Cameron and Huhne would not get away with taxing people to death (literally).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332343/Nine-pensioners-died-cold-hour-winter-prices-soar.html
If the cold doesn’t kill them then the cure will.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2048460/NHS-health-care-Neglect-elderly-ONE-FIFTH-hospitals-breaks-law.html
What a nasty country we live in. If you want progress do not vote socialism, it has not worked and never will. Only socialism rewards failure.
OK, so Pual Hudson is REALLY well qualified in science.
We know Harrabin is an English graduate.
Black ???
Look at the creeps he joins up with :
http://www.stakeholderforum.org/index.php?id=theteam
And he pretends to follow the BBC credo of impartiality ?
I am sure Richard Black – like Monbiot at the Guardian, Louise Grey at the Telegraph – “environmental correspondents” have NO degree in science between them.
………………………….
And of course Richard Black has a lot of form on denying the influence of the Sun on our climate, it goes way back :
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/clothcap2/clothcap2/4050221/The_alarmists_should_be_sacked__BBC/
I believe Black’s only degree is in philosophy.
But he has tons of post-grad experience in sucking up to Warmists and their faux-charity NGOs.
“As Environment Correspondent, Louise Gray writes about Britain’s beautiful countryside and how we can keep it that way. This can range from recycling at home, to feeding the birds and global warming.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/louise-gray/
You would think that “global warming” would become before feeding the birds. It just illustrates the madness. It seems that “global warming” is tagged onto anything just to make money.
ROBERT BROWN; I gather G. Monbiot is actually a zoologist, i guess getting all hot and bothered about the climate is just a hobby really, but the Grauniad seems to like his witterings. I recall a radio piece some time ago, R2 i think, and he was pitched against another chap and the subject was grass-cutting, Georgie boy uses a SCYTHE, and the other a petrol mower. All through the piece Moonbat refers to the petrol man as a ‘caveman’ and jolly rude with it. I thought, hang on, who’s really the caveman here, a scythe? Discuss.
David Gregory – no need to offer an opinion, just put the fact straight. Has Black got a science degree or not ?
Silence from you and other BBC folk will be taken as a NO.
…………………………
The point is, lots of real scientists think Black is a charlatan.
My M Sc is not in anything to do with climte “science” – but it is still an M Sc, I know what scientific method implies. Methinks Back would not know scientific method even if it bit him.
Black is a propagandist, pure and simple. He is not a good journalist because he is always propagandising.
John I also have an MSc (not in climate change), but I do know how the scientific method works.
My old physics lecturer always told me to report the observations from experiments as accurately as possible and not try and fit them into a theory. “If they did not fit in with the theory” he would say “put that in the report”. Not all experiments fit neatly to a theory, in fact in most situations you just cannot reproduce an experiment precisly. Different factors all come into play. That is why science is never settled and climate science is still in its infancy. Yet the “activist” scientists can always produce a report dead on queue.
This is not science its politics.
With a mere BSc in Zoology, I feel humbled in the company of these MScs !!!
No need – I simply paid a fee for a part-time “taught” course, not at all rigorous, but for my dissertation I chose a new subject and was able to turn the essay into a commercial report which I sold on, thereby more than paying the fee.
The main point is – Black has nil scientific qualification, but sees foit to “lecture” the rest of us, his articles pretend he has some kind of expertise and real knowledge.
After Uni (Vet & Civ Eng.. only a BSc :-[ I went into advertising & laterly publishing.
I hence also have a Professorship in media BS.
The first two mean I can see it applied to science and engineering a mile off.
Plus I commit most of my life to high enviROI, genuine eco efforts that will make my kids’ futures better.
Which is why I call out Huhne, Cameron, Miliband and the BBC on almost all they try and spin in these areas, as they at best have no clue, and at worst hide behind no qualifications in trying to rig their agendas.
My site,
Sums it up , perfectly !
I have asked a simple question for years to the likes of Gregory and have never had it answered.
Their science is the consensus and as such nothing that confirms that consensus can possible betray the trust of his collegues.
All I want is the document or a link to something which identifies the 3,000 scientists who agree with this consensus.
“…the UN’s IPCC report has the weight of 3,000 scientists, including several of the world’s most distinguished meteorologists, behind it”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1435009.stm
It has never been produced and no explanation was forthcoming.
“Canada: 3000 scientists tell federal government to ‘act now’ on climate change ”
http://ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=143738&keybold=Arctic%20AND%20%20climate%20AND%20%20change%20AND%20%20talks
But it isn’t 3,000 scientists at all.
“We must act responsibly. We must act now. We must act in concert with other industrialized nations,” leaders of organizations representing more than 3,000 scientists said in an open letter to parliamentarians Thursday.”
Its like saying that 3,000 workers demand more pay on the say so of a union leader. It seems science organisations are using the “block vote” too.
This is why the question is never answered because it is a lie. I cannot stand the dishonesty. The world is in an economic crises, people are losing their jobs, and all the while the BBC , which is supposed to reflect the views of its licence payers, spreads lies and propaganda helping the greedy and blinkered elite to put ever higher taxes on the essentials of life. When energy prices go up, everything follows.
I expect Gregory will not be sitting close to one electric bar this winter to save money.