If Richard Black is to be believed, he has a real world scoop; he’s got his eco zealot little mitts on a draft of the latest IPCC report several days before publication. Now in my journalist manual, that’s a hold the front page scoop if ever I saw one – especially as the BBC has been the main conduit of publicity for the IPCC’s faked exaggerations for more than a decade. But it hasn’t happened. He’s instead got a modest down page lead, and his exclusive – far from being trumpeted – is rather buried in a load of verbiage about the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a grouping of developing world countries who are hollering loudly for buckets of cash because the nasty west has caused flooding, droughts and all the pestilence they have ever known.
So why the reticence? Could it be that, as Benny Peiser deftly points out here, that the IPCC is saying that – far from the Armageddon they’ve been predicting for years – the latest data shows something very different:
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.
Shock horror! No doomsday, so Mr Black glosses over the seemingly seismic shift – but blethers on regardless about the various countries’ tiresome complaints like rising sea levels, all of which have been rehearsed a thousand times before and all of which have been debunked. I must say, I smell a huge rat. If the IPCC really does come out with a report that suggests natural variability as the main driver of climate change, it will be astonishing. Of course, they will (almost certainly) also say that their models show that warming will resume later…and that, I predict, will be Mr Black’s focus.
Robin, it’s a shame that we can’t rub Mr Black’s nose in his own shit, as you would do with a pet dog or cat that needs to be house trained.
In Black’s case that would be a waste of good shit!!!
talking about rubbing his nose in it ive got just the man 🙂
not only kicking adherrents & ipcc into touch but out of the stadium.
http://youtu.be/ma6cnPLcrtA
So how has Black got his hands on a “leaked” report? The only people he is likely to be in contact with is the very people who produce the nonsense. There is more to this than meets the eye.
Richard Black and The IPCC.
Two things not to be trusted. A lot of “institutions” are in the process of once again moving the goalposts in order that their comfortable existence feeding off the AGW scare is not disrupted. There will be a great deal of this in the near future. Monbiot saw the light when Climategate occrrred and has been rowing back ever since. Others will follow.
Bastards, the lot of them. Fortunately , the Internet never forgets.
The financial services industry has had put aside many billions for compensation for mis-selling pensions.
How much should the Department of Education put aside for the mis-selling of “Climate Change” to a generation of our children?
I put this post on the BBC website a week ago –
—————————————————————
“You are not going to have a job for long, Richard, as the BBC and the Guardian are the only ones who still believe in ‘CO2 emissions warming the planet’. Hopefully you will have to make a full apology for your foolishness, because I trust you do really believe what you say, don’t you? You are not just saying these things because you are paid to, are you?”
——————————————————————–
No surprises, yesterday I received this :
Dear BBC Visitor,
Your comment was considered to have broken the following House Rule:
Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others
Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable
Contain swear words or other language likely to offend”
—————————————————————-
I wonder which part of the terms above was violated?
Guessing you are not over surprised 😉 ?
However, that more and more deployed ‘catch-all’ shows the farce that is the BBC’s modding policy.
What… the heck… comes under ‘disrupt’? In what way? By whose measure?
And then… ‘offend’. Twice! Again… ‘offend’. Who” How?
It is a licence to censor, pure and simple.
And folk are noticing more and more.
Even BBCphilic regular posters are kicking up.
And the BBC is stumped.
The BBC 5th column posters are reduced to accepting it’s prevalent, but trying to claim that it’s not affordable to moderate, so bascially it’s fine just to obliterate anything that does not praise the BBC and those the BBC praises.
There is a poor historical precedent for this.
Hang on. I find Mr Black’s outpourings offensive. Therefore his blog is likely to offend and should be moderated out. Plus he frequently attacks sceptics, so he’s caught there too. Or we could just use the “otherwise objectionable” clause. Now that’s the ultimate catch-all.
“…I wonder which part of the terms above was violated?…”
All of them – probably…
You norty boy, how very DARE you?
“otherwise objectionable”
You criticized the Bishop of Warmism.
The BBC is finding it difficult to sell its green propaganda to some customers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8889541/BBC-drops-Frozen-Planets-climate-change-episode-to-sell-show-better-abroad.html
Of course, we are forced to buy it or we’ll get a fine and a criminal record for the heinous crime of using our own TV sets on our own homes.
Selling 6 episodes instead of 7 is probably a better deal for the buyers. More to the point, why would anyone pay good money to receive propaganda? They are not obligated to pay for this contentious rubbish. Unfortunately, if you live in the UK and watch TV, you have no option short of not coughing up for the TV tax and slamming your front door in the face of the BBC payment police when they come to call.
Notice, by the way, that the Telegraph (which is comfortably in bed with the warmists) only features quotes from RSPB, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. Unsurprisingly these organisations deplore the inability of the BBC to force foreign networks to show the seventh episode which features, it appears, an extended talk to camera by a sadly deluded David Attenborough.
The self-immolation of Attenborough’s integrity is the human equivalent of what has happened to the BBC. A much trusted – even loved – broadcaster is using his (its) credibility and reputation built up over a long and distinguished career to sell a biased, contentious and deceptive narrative to the credulous.
As Grant very kindly reminded everyone on the Open Thread (your crate of chilli flavour Irn Bru is in the post) I predicted this a few weeks ago. So I should be feeling pleased with myself, but it’s just made me f***ing angry at its f***ing predictability.
I won’t watch it, because the doctor has warned me about my blood pressure, but I hope those with the know-how do so and prepare to rip the BBC a new one on the inaccuracies and falsehoods that they will undoubtedly peddle.
Truly it is sad to see the end that Attenborough has come to, when I recall all the fine programmes of my youth.
Yes, Roland , it is sad that David Attenborough has sunk to this.
A nice thought about the Irn Bru, but I am leaving tomorrow and , if you are sending it by Royal Mail, I won’t hold my breath…………
BBC-greenie lobby, its warmist propaganda and commercial reality:
“Frozen Planet: BBC To Drop Climate Change Episode Abroad ‘To Help Sales'”
“It is thought the episode of the BBC’s hit nature documentary would be a particular turn-off for the US market, where climate change sceptics are a particularly vocal group. ”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/15/frozen-planets-climate-ch_n_1094362.html?ref=uk
Well, well. Compare the HuffPo wording with this from the BBC article:
“Viewers in the United States, where climate change sceptics are particularly strong group, will not see the full episode”
One might almost think one had copied the other.
Grant
I don’t know if you’re going to Nigeria on your West African tour but many moons ago I was in the Guinness head office in London and they offered me a sample from a (very) large number of Guinnesses brewed world-wide. While I was still able to sit (I’d given up standing by then) I tasted the Guiness brewed in Nigeria: it was superb! The Guinness bloke hosting this event said mildly that yes, Nigerian Guinness is always the favourite!
Even if Nigeria doesn’t figure – enjoy the trip.
Thanks, Umbongo, but I haven’t quite made it down to Nigeria yet.
However, Guinness is brewed in Gambia, at 8% ( ! ) and enjoyed by foreigners and locals alike.
Africans seem especially keen on it. If you ask them why , you get various responses including “because the body is black and the head is white ” which comment, of course ,would never make it onto the BBC !!!
Actually, I’d say the BBC was more honest than the HuffPoUK. The HuffPuffs described the US skeptics as “particularly vocal”, while the BBC said “particularly strong”. There’s a difference there, and more than a semantic one. There’s an implicit scope and value in each modifier.
“Vocal” implies that it’s still the minority, but just loud enough to dictate policy via the tyranny of the loudest minority. Curiously, that’s just what the Occupiers, darlings of the BBC, want to do.
“Strong” implies not only that they have significant influence, but that there are more of them.
A rare occasion when the BBC got it about right on this issue. The thing is, this decision was made by the Discovery mavens, who are business partners with the BBC not only in this series, but in BBC America itself, as well as other documentaries. It’s not “flexibility” so much as the Discovery people said, “No thanks, folks don’t take kindly to that kind of thing round these parts.”
It’s a commercial enterprise. There won’t be an outcry from deniers screaming for a boycott and chasing away advertisers. More likely the Discovery folks know they’ll have a hard time selling it because the advertisers will be skeptical about Warmism, and understand why they’re called Watermelons.
Although, it could also be much simpler than that: The Discovery Channel holds to a higher standard of science than the BBC, and doesn’t think the Warmist crap deserves their time.
‘One might almost think one had copied the other’
That logo I once saw with The Graun and BBC cheek to cheek may need evolving, though the genetic mutation involved may represent a physiological nightmare.
Doesn’t alter what passes through ’em much.
“Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others
Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable Contain swear words or other language likely to offend”
A catch all way to exclude comments and posts that contradict the BBC narrative or offends leftist beliefs
Likely to offend the left that is? Of course any attacks on the right are deemed acceptable and you see numerous posts on BBC forums doing exactly that, many from BBC staff.
Cassie,
Honestly, anyone would think you are implying that Beeboids are totalitarian hypocrites. Shame on you !
‘A catch all way to exclude comments and posts that contradict the BBC narrative or offends leftist beliefs’
Indeed.
In fact the BBC blog and/or complaint systems seem to have given up on any but token pretence in that regard.
A fact my (Tory) MP seems gaily oblivious too.
Mind you, any twerp who thinks his local representation value is best served by glossy flyers of him reclining in the DP or Today studio comfy sofa to shmooze his way up the ‘one to watch’ ratings may find a wee shock come the point when we vote on folk to dig us out of this mess.
And no, DimLabs, you are simply lower on a very slippery totem chez MS(cte)
The BBC censors the whole post, not just the bit that that they do not like, so you are never sure what has been censored.
I know there are people at the BBC who want their blog to have the lowest possible censorship so as to have a proper debate. They have even sent me a post on climate change that was censored by the BBC but which the BBC insider did not want censored.
When I asked why the poster had disappeared after his last post was censored, he sent me the censored post.
A named BBC person sent you another person’s censored post?
Truly… unique.
My expereince is that the entire orgainisation would be happy if no outside comment was possible and they could get round to broadcast only.
And the drones fielding the few avenues of feedback are more than prone to err on being safe (no FOI, no consequence) over sorry (let slip a nharrative buster and see the bonus nobbled).
Yes, it is strange how little of the BBC’s immense resources ( financial I mean, I am not talking about talent ) they devote to dealing with complaints.
Anyone might think it was deliberate.
Look at a story that the BBC will not allow on air, will never investigate, will never even acknowledge. Its a bleedin black hole at the BBC, should be a documentary made about how some important stories behave rather like ‘dark matter’ Its a bleedin mystery innit? Invisible stories that the BBC cannot see. Its a case of kick back city Arizona… or rather Chicago babeee. The ugly side of US politics, the endemic corruption, sharp practices, grubby bin diving, smears.
Green kickbacks
80% of DOE Green Energy Loans Went to Obama Backers
A new book by Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer details the startling extent of the cronyism that has pervaded President Obama’s “green jobs” push. According to Schweizer, 4 out of every 5 renewable energy companies backed by the Energy Department was “run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers.”
Those companies’ “political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy,” Schweizer explains. “It brought them returns many times over.”
Such is the inevitable consequence of large government interventions in private markets. Leaving aside the losses associated with transfers of funds from self-sustaining industries to ones that rely on government support, such interventions also encourage unproductive business activities by making “subsidy suckling” far more profitable than run-of-the-mill business expansions or product improvements.
Doug Ross spotted the relevant excerpt of Schweizer’s book (h/t Ben Domenech’s Transom):
When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy… After he was sworn in as president, he proclaimed that taxpayer money would assuredly not be doled out to political friends…
…But an examination of grants and guaranteed loans offered by just one stimulus program run by the Department of Energy, for alternative-energy projects, is stunning. The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies…
…In the 1705 government-backed-loan program [alone], for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.
…The Government Accountability Office has been highly critical of the way guaranteed loans and grants were doled out by the Department of Energy, complaining that the process appears “arbitrary” and lacks transparency. In March 2011, for example, the GAO examined the first 18 loans that were approved and found that none were properly documented. It also noted that officials “did not always record the results of analysis” of these applications. A loan program for electric cars, for example, “lacks performance measures.” No notes were kept during the review process, so it is difficult to determine how loan decisions were made. The GAO further declared that the Department of Energy “had treated applicants inconsistently in the application review process, favoring some applicants and disadvantaging others.” The Department of Energy’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman, … has testified that contracts have been steered to “friends and family.”
…These programs might be the greatest—and most expensive—example of crony capitalism in American history. Tens of billions of dollars went to firms controlled or owned by fundraisers, bundlers, and political allies, many of whom—surprise!—are now raising money for Obama again.
SOURCE
Just imagine if it had been the Republicans or Conservatives. BBC headlines for decades !
A very visible sign of how insidious and effective the BBC are with their bias, in this case to do with Climate Change. The 7th episode of a natural history series they have produced has been rejected by the USA, along with 9 other countries, ‘where many are hostile to the idea of global warming’ – at least the way the BBC portray it.
Shows just how brainwashed the public have become in this country, thanks to the BBC.
Climate change episode of Frozen Planet won’t be shown in the U.S. as viewers don’t believe in global warming
As regards a complaint to the BBC Trust by Mensa members about the Climate Change program Hot Planet transmitted in December of 2009.
They found that the senior scientific advisor for the program was Professor Peter Cox. The BBC has had trouble with Professor Cox regarding the predictions of a Barbecue Summer and Mild Winters and his prominent role in the Climategate Scandal and with the IPCC which he is linked.
They were surprised that the promised independent investigation did not include any independent Climate Scientists not involved with the production of the documentary.
Surprisingly, Professor Cox found himself innocent, but revealed ignorance to Mensa members on issues not his speciality. Two examples were (1) He confused the southern ocean with the deep ocean. (2) He seemed totally ignorant of issues involving the science of Cosmoclimatology.