I’m bored with writing about the BBC’s bias about climate change. Nothing changes. But I could not let the latest Richard Black homily pass. Here it is – an unbridled, no-praise-too-small homage to the nice, cuddly eco-warrior activists at Greenpeace. Single-handedly, according to Mr Black, these heroes have saved the whales, stopped the pollution of rivers and halted deforestation, though the nasty Indonsesian president is daring to try get in their way.
I actually prefer an alternative view of Greenpeace, which is that they are thuggish, vicious louts who stop at nothing to spread posonous lies. Donna Laframbois – whose magisterial book on the lies of the IPCC is just out – has their measure. In 1994, for example, they published a scare-fest pamphlet called the Climate Time Bomb which suggested that the impacts of global warming were already leading to coral bleaching, species extinction, and widespread urban disease. Not one element of their alarmism stands the test of time. But not content with spreading such lies themselves, Greenpeace have also infiltrated the IPCC to the extent that their press releases (more lies) make it into reports without dilution or check. And – Ka-ching! – not content with that, they bank-roll so-called scientists to fabricate climate change research.
Propaganda comes in many guises. In Mr Black’s case, it’s as subtle as a Glasgow kiss.
Never a word from the beeb about EU (=green agenda) grant aid to WWF, FoE and other warmist propaganda organisations…..almost forgot the bbc.
There were actually 30 comments to Mr Black enlightning homage to Greenpeace. 13 were definitely not impressed; 11 were non-committal or not directly related and 6 were pro. Several comments must have slipped through the censor, including:
“Another Greenpeace press release masquerading as BBC ‘news.’ How many free lunches is all this free publicity worth?”
“Another Greenpeace press release masquerading as BBC ‘news.’
There really is no excuse for this, as the content of Mr. Black’s lastest reads in no other way.
Some paras have been plainly been lifted with zero consideration for what is actually being shared.
I read his threads now only for joke value, but often the actual seriously interesting science or engineering responding posts that can be offered within the constraints of the character limit.
This exemplifies everything wrong with the bBC. A professional eco-liar on the bBc payroll cut’n’pastes a press release from a bunch of self-appointed ecofacists, everybody gets paid and goes home with a full belly paid for by us, for pumping out green lies to the British public.
One of the early Greenpeace founders, Patrick Moore, went through a considerable change of heart and left the organisation with much disappointment :
In 2005, Moore criticized what he saw as scare tactics and disinformation employed by some within the environmental movement, saying that the environmental movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.“
He suggests they romanticise peasant life as part of an anti-industrial campaign to prevent development in less-developed countries, which he describes as “anti-human”
It’s not difficult to see how he is now at odds with the current enviromental movement :
Moore calls global warming the “most difficult issue facing the scientific community today in terms of being able to actually predict with any kind of accuracy what’s going to happen”. In 2006, he wrote to the Royal Society arguing there was “no scientific proof” that mankind was causing global warming.
Heresy !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29
He also wrote a book about the experience :
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Confessions-Greenpeace-Dropout-Sensible-Environmentalist/dp/0986480827
The most telling remark, regarding their abandoning of science in favour of emotion, is the primary reason I so mistrust the organisation these days. I believe there was a time when they were a more reasonable group, driven by rational science based arguments rather than the emotive misanthropy that seems to be their M.O. today.
Just as a matter of related interest :
I was doing the rounds of my regular blog visits when I came across this article, which made use of an ‘Ngram Viewer’ on Google Books.
http://www.maxfarquar.com/2011/10/european-union-graph-of-the-day/
So I thought I’d try out the terms “global warming” and “climate change“. There is a definite point (1993) where the conveniently more ambiguous term “change” begins to supercede the more specific “warming“.
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=global+warming%2Cclimate+change&year_start=1984&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=2
Nice catch Reed. The graph also shows other interesting things, if I read it right.
Before the point of the name shift in 1993, the total quantity of books published on change/warming had been increasing significantly – the “climate publishing industry”.
The use of the term “warming” remains fairly constant instead of declining as you would expect if one simply swapped with the other.
Most of the growth is accounted for by the new “Climate Change Industry”. Having now nosed around Foyles, Waterstones and Blackwells, this industry is certainly the output of large numbers of academics seeking to justify their university tenure, plus the giant bandwagon of alarmist activist journalists.
Perhaps the next chart needed is the last ten years of average global temperature largely unchanged against the vast increase in the number books published about change. Its a bubble, isn’t it
Lord Lawson gives the BEEB a good kicking in the Sunday Times this morning.
News Review Section.
And so he should, but he’s wasting his precious breath more’s the pity.
Downloaded three good books on my Kindle recently:
Delingpole’s “Watermelons”,
Donna’s “The Delinquent Teenager”
Bob Carter’s “Climate: the Counter Concensus”.
All three well written and to the point.
Shame the powers that be are not listening (or reading, for that matter- they think if they ignore them, the facts will go away).
Heres the article from the ST published by GWPF
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/4112-nigel-lawson-listen-up-bbc-the-climate-debate-is-far-from-over.html
Greepeace meanwhile is extracting full vengeance upon the dissenting Patrick Moore.
Just Google “Patrick Moore” and “Greenpeace” to see the array of vicious character assiassinations. Don’t mess with the Green Mafia.
Black used to get 100s of comments on his articles. The number seem to be dwindling. Is this because the BBC are filtering out the bad ones or are people just tired of his over the top propaganda?
The latter which, sadly, suggests the weasels are succeeding either way.
They can’t ‘filter out’ anything, but the techniques to deal with those that don’t suit are spreading.
Infinite referalls.
All-purpose House Rules, that even if yoiu get an advice deleiberately don’t specify what exactly the problem is, ranging from an ‘ism to scaring the horses.
Closed for comments.
Broaqdcast only blogs.
Watertight oversight (coined by Mr. Black, and which needs to be on his headstone, along with any thought of BBC professional integrity)
And now a raft of ‘accidents’, where existing threads get wiped, or stalled or vanish or 401.
They either think we won’t notice, or don’t care.
Mr. Black’s latest niow ‘closed for comments’ at 36.
To be fair, it was not going well.
The Space Special Interest Group of Mensa asked Sir Patrick Moore if he said that man made Climate Change was bunkum, he replied in agreement with that statement, but we found out later that it was the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore who said Bunkum.
‘Lord Young warns, “in an age of few political beliefs, the cause of climate change [has become] an end in itself. . . . Only recently the Government Chief Scientist, no less, forecast that by the end of the century, Antarctica would be the only habitable continent.”
But he notes that there has been no global warming trend since 1998. “Are we absolutely certain that the main cause of global warming is carbon and has nothing to do with the output of the Sun, or any of the other theories?” he asked. “It would be unfortunate if history recalled that we solved a problem that in the end did not require a solution by tipping [Britain’s economy] into a depression.” ‘
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41321?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook
Our present political elite will be judged harshly by history and not only on AGW.