Understandably there’s a great deal of discussion about Climategate 2 in the comments. I’m sure Robin will be along to give us his take but in the meantime here’s a thread dedicated to the subject. There’s a searchable database here (those with time might like to start sifting through the results for “BBC“).
CLIMATEGATE 2
Bookmark the permalink.
DB
My comment in another thread fits in rather better here I think:
The fix is in. There was no mention (that I heard) on Today this morning nor in the 8:00 News about the new release of UEA emails. Also Louise Gray (Queen of the Press Release), fresh from her trip on the maiden voyage of the new Greenpeace luxury yacht http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/8896024/Greenpeaces-warrior-spirit-cannot-be-crushed.html , dismissed the emails as “stolen” and churned a raft of quotes from warmist spokesmen http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8907756/Climategate-2-More-UEA-hacked-emails.html . I suspect her anathema was written/issued before she had time to read any of the emails.
I think we can take it that the party line from the BBC and the other enablers of corrupt science is that the new info should be ignored (the optimum policy), downplayed or demonised as “stolen” (rather than “leaked”) and thus damned accordingly.
Yes, the “churn” is in as regards recycling statements by UEA and Michael Mann.
But somehow Richard Black is failing to churn the real stuff – the text of some of the disgraceful emails. Black has written two lengthy pieces – but has not included a single word of the offending emails. They stink to high heaven of academic shenanigans. There are dozens of juicy examples, they are all over the Internet.
But Black deliberately ignores them.
Does the grubbiness of these fraudsters change if the emails are stolen or leaked?
It shows how incapable the MSM are if this is their ownly line of defence.
Aw c’mon folks, it’s all part of the scientific process.
So says, Michael Mann, and I for one believe him.
It was Susan Watts who was on Newsnight last night talking about Climategate 2.
I suspect the BBC will now simply put this story to bed as they like to do, note there was no proper investigation, Watts failed to mention the reports that had ‘cleared’ the scientists in the previous leaks were internal reports (funny that the BBC always highlight that when it’s an internal Police report for example) and don’t expect the BBC to put anyone live on air who is a sceptic.
What gets me is the BBC have glossed over what we now know that most climate change is not man made but natural and even the latest IPCC report admits that.
No one that I’ve ever read who is a ‘denier’ is really a denier at all, most of us who doubt the so called science of climate change (which is basically an upmarket version of Mystic Meg) don’t the like the fact that scientists have mixed in natural variations with so called man made influences.
No one can say if human activity is 90% responsible or 10% responsible. The reason we need to know is if most change is natural and cannot be altered why waste trillions of dollars trying to stop something we can’t and screw up our economies in the process.
We know that, the thick beeboids appear not to.
Martin
Apparently Watts spliced up Obama’s inaugural address for a warmist sound-bite – per Harmless Sky here http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=147&cp=all . Its a full house at the BBC poker table: dishonest, incompetent and biased.
Well alright – three of a kind
Would the splicing of the POTUS speech not be worth a complaint? I seem to remember some trouble was caused when they used incorret footage of HRH.
‘Would the splicing of the POTUS speech not be worth a complaint?’
It did come up…
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/23/newsnight-does-climategate-ii.html?
Ms. Watts’ reputation seems to be getting on par with Mr. Black’s, and the BBC’s corporate stance too. If you can see that far down the hole.
I’d forgotten about the changing of a speech to suit.
Interesting how easily it got washed over.
Maybe the time has come to say enough?
I should make it clear that the post on Harmless Sky was put up in January 2009 around the time of Obama’s inauguration. It illustrates that Watts (a “science” editor) has been aboard the bandwagon of climate (non)science for some time. BTW, did anyone notice the background to the image of Mann being “interviewed”? It showed glaciers “calving” into the sea. Subtle eh!
Beyond his rather erratic broadcast (only) and blog bodies of work, Mr. Black’s twitter feed is a peach.
I know that twitter ‘doesn’t count’ for some reason in guaging folks’ leanings, but given the pan-MSM interest in this story, it is intriguing that the tweets citing our hero from the media estate seem to be heaviest from one cheeky little title only.
Echo chambers do tend to ensure you only hear what you listen to.
But at least he is at the heart of briefings on our behalf.
BBCRBlack Richard Black At briefing with UEA Phil Jones and Edward Acton
Twitter doesn’t count? When it’s now used as a source of news on the main web page?
Jones:
[on FOI and temperature data]
”Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
Says a lot about Jones and his gang.
Not beeb related, but interesting nonetheless – searching “trick” brings up some interesting, but not damning, results.
Mike,
> You’re getting paranoid now! I got this in September
> and replied accordingly.
> Channel 4 is watched by less than 1M viewers here in the UK.
> I doubt they will get anything out in time for IPCC. Ch 4 is an
> independent TV company.
>
> There is a major BBC program coming out on Sunday
> showing what Britain will be like in 2050 and 2080. David
> Attenborough ( now you’ve heard of him) leading it. This
> will get about 5-8M viewers – depends a bit on time.
> There is something on the BBC site, but I can’t find it.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=629
Back on the Paul Hudson not singing to the BBCs Orchestra at BBC Look North is this exchange”
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on
Friday wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will
force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as
are other skeptics views.
[7]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[8]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/REDACTED/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on
-climate-change/
BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha
______________________________________
REPLY From Michael Mann
Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly 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 be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
mike
______________________________________
It can’t be healthy having Richard Black so far up the back passage of UEA
Number 1428. It’s 2003 and you’re thinking about reinventing your economics coverage. Who are you gonna call? On the recommendation of Roger Harrabin, you call the boys at UEA, of course, and perhaps those nice chaps at the Tyndall Centre, of recent ‘fracking is bad’ fame.
1683
2) Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just
another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a
crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is – the present
warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that. This is a very big
moment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global
warming.
Hopefully this makes it clear what I’m trying to achieve.
Look forward to tomorrow.
All best
Jonathan
Jonathan Renouf
Series Producer
Science Department
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1633
Snap, Billy.
Oh look the producer Jonathan Renouf appears on The Guardian website saying:
“Meanwhile, some critics have taken a much more ideological approach. For them, the BBC is the “Biased Broadcasting Corporation”, incapable of “balance” on global warming (or indeed any other major issue). All I can say is that I wish the bloggers could have been there as we made the series. I think that had they been with us they would have been reassured at the level of scrutiny that all the scientific claims in the series were subjected to.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/02/climatechange.television
He really is deluded, isn’t he?
No, not deluded, Alfie, an accomplished liar. He knows what he is doing. It’s his profession. Manipulate words on a page. He is confident he can get away with lying because he knows this is what they want to hear. He would call black white without shame.
Number 1683. In an unidentified science programme, the presenter, Paul Rose, appears to the viewing audience to be on a journey of discovery related to climate change. But he isn’t really. For when Keith Briffa of UEA explains Mann’s hockey stick, it is preordained that Paul is now convinced about AGW.
“This is a very big moment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global warming.”
Could be this one http://www.paulrose.org/meltdown-global-warming-journey.html
On my way home last evening with my car radio on Radio3, as one does, I got chat about the Luddites. Well into the programme one of the presenters of this “Thinking” slot said that “now in Novewmber we are 61 days from reaching a tipping point as CO2 is increasing to dangerous levels”. “61 days precisely”, what stupid computer spit that out, I do not know who the idiot was who said it, laughing too much. And the licence payer has to fund this, the BBC and thinking in the same phrase, what a joke.
What did these Beeboids expect us to do? Go to China and shut down all their industry? Next week in South Africa the world’s climate alarmists meet to try to get agreement on how much China can be allowed to increase their emissions to. It will be by an amount several times higher than the total emissions that the whole of the UK emits every year.
For all the decietful spin that China is doing all it can to reduce emissions, they are still increasing them, and plan to keep on increasing them, for decades to come.
Yes but China is a commie Country and the left love China, so to stop the west using the ‘excuse’ that China is the major polluter, they want western Countries to be responsible for the CO2 produced in churning out the plastic shit like Ipads that infest our Country.
I specifically pick out the ipad as it’s the flag of those left wing slightly gay BBC males who all seem to own one.
The BBC seem to lecture on one hand but ignore reality with the other.
Let’s simply STOP all imports from China, no more iPads, iPods or Apple laptops. But no more CO2
Martin, if you take away the iPads and Macbooks, how will the darling Occupiers continue to get the word out? =-O
China’s making money off of Warmism by taking jobs away from the rest of us and building, among other things, GE’s wind turbines. They also make solar panels much more cheaply than the US, which is why Solyndra et al were doomed before they even started. Yet The Obamessiah throws billions down that toilet anyway.
The Chinese are quite happy for the rest of us to commit industrial suicide. They’re hoping we do it first before their own system gets out of hand and they can no longer control the civic unrest.
Number 2317. A climate sceptic, Professor David Legates makes a bit of a splash in the media about Mann’s hockey stick. Phil Jones of UEA thinks he has headed this one off at the pass.
“As for your email, there was some press activity related to this skeptic below, but managed to talk the BBC out of doing anything.”
But that was back in the heady days before the BBC settled the science and evenually the BBC did cover this, featuring Phil Jones of course.
Number 2496. Back in 2002, Mike Hulme of UEA was very unhappy about a debate on Radio 4’s Today programme.
“Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the CambridgeMedia/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.”
CMEP being Roger Harrabin and Joe Smith’s outfit. Starve this type of reporting at source, eh. Job done, I’d say.
Well how about this: Phil Jones admits that the BBC’s climate change coverage is “is generally one-sided”
Link is here: http://tiny.cc/c3gcm
Abstract:
16:19:22 2008
from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
subject: Re: [Env.faculty] Global Environmental Change Projects
to: Claire Reeves <REDACTED>
…The reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, i.e. the counter argument is rarely made. There is, however, still a vociferous and small majority of climate change skeptics (also called deniers, but these almost entirely exclude any climate-trained climate scientists) who engage the public/govt/media through web sites. Mainstream climate science does not engage with them, and most of these skeptics/deniers do not write regular scientific papers in peer-review journals. The project would address the division through the reporting (in mainstream media and bloggs) of a number (to be decided but 3-5) recent scientific papers. Issues to be addressed include: should a vociferous minority be able to bully mainstream scientists?; should mainstream climate scientists have to change the way they have worked for generations (through the peer-review literature)? and should the science be conducted across blogg sites?…
O/T but didn’t know where to put this.
Incredible disdain by lefty shrill about BBC bias!!!
http://labourlist.org/2011/11/shame-on-you-bbc/
Obviously this activist hasn’t followed BBC instructions to look at the big picture of all their reporting on the subject, rather than focus on one article. The Beeboids have told us that each individual report doesn’t need to have balance as their overall reporting will provide it. Yeah, right. But what’s good for the goose, etc.
But I did like this comment by self-described ex-Beeboid, Jos Bell:
this is becoming a constant….and one which (as ex Beeb ) I have challenged on a number of occasions recently, even resorting to phoning the news desk to challenge content during programmes. Once upon a time ( how long ago that sounds!) reporters were always required to ensure a balanced approach to fulfil the educate, inform and entertain commitment. Now, time after time, BBC reports are increasingly avoiding the use of key pieces of information/events and using pejorative language ( think about the Humphreys TV prog on benefits and the obliteration of events such as the March of the 8,000 Hardest Hit). This seems to have become far more marked since Patten came into post where editorial meetings are using the ‘will it offend the Daily Mail’ baseline instead of seeking to outline the truth. I have a mug which says Proud of the BBC ~ I don’t tend to use it these days ~ I really do not want to support an organisation which seems to have become an agent of propoganda.
A check of her other comments (in her Profile) shows her to be die-hard Labour, using the first person plural when discussing Labour accomplishments. She’s upset that the BBC isn’t all pro-Labour reporting, and one can only imagine what the ones who still work there are like.
BBC caught red-handed. The date (I think) is August 1999:
From: Philip Eden [to Mike Hulme]
Sent: Wednesday, AugustREDACTED:13 AM
To: REDACTED
Subject: Warming Sceptics
Mike
Thanks for taking part in the Global Warming thing yesterday morning. I’m sorry the treatment is always so superficial on these occasions, but that I suppose is the level of the public debate.
Nevertheless, the item did bring one sceptic out of the woodwork.
The gentleman concerned is called Bernard Abrams, his company is called Environmental Monitoring and Analysis and he is based in Cheltenham.
Have you come across him? If you know where he’s coming from, any vested interests, etc, I would be very grateful … indeed, I would be interested in any list of sceptics you may have.
Do you have, or have you ever thought of producing, a rebuttal document outlining in simple terms the fallacies in the various arguments that the sceptics use? I’m sure weather forecasters, specialists journalists, etc, would be very grateful to lay their hands on something like that.
Best wishes
Philip Eden
Radio 5-Live
Link is here:
http://tiny.cc/1jw55
Richard Black’s blog piece “Storm or Yawn” – patently designed to make light of the latest emails, while never printing any of them – attracted over 200 comments today.
But has now been closed for further comments.
“The don’t like it up-em” ?
But has now been closed for further comments.
22ND NOVEMBER 2011 – 22:33 – 46 MINUTES AGO
Less… much less than a day, on a still very active topic.
Watertight oversight in action.
If the only thing being kept out is any more filleting of their role and complicity.
What a joke.
Here is the reality of the supposed increase in temperatures that supposedly cannot be explained by natural cyclic variation.
The reality that the BBC will never allow to be shown, addicted as they are to graphs like the hockey stick. We are told that the increase is so fast and so large that only spending what amounts to trillions of dollars and closing down large parts of our economy will fix.
Please look at the graph below, I hope David Gregory sees this graph, you can imagine what would happen to his career if he dared to do a report on this even if he wanted to. So take in the reality and remember what the BBC have claimed, yes they mindlessly reprint any old trash from big eco but they are responsible for content.
It certainly looks like the planet is just burning up, if we dont act now then within several thousand years there could be a problem eh?
Ok. So this is a graph from this blog; http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/ First thing to note is it only shows the US temperature record. You can argue about what a global temperature really means, but clearly looking at a single country or region may well mean you are just seeing a local effect. So if you think this graph doesn’t show “the planet is just burning up”… well that’s because it’s not the temperature record for the planet. Just a bit of it.
I’d always encourage people to take the data and perform their own analysis but whatever this person has done it doesn’t agree with the data plot here from the EPA (response 2-27) http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/comments/volume2.html (which also has plenty of useful extra information)
i’m iterested as to whose blog this is Cassie as I can’t quite make it out from the front page. And if there’s a link to any methodology perhaps we can find out what assumptions he or she is making. Phrases like “they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect,” do worry me a bit.
As for reporting on it? Well “I found a graph on a blog” isn’t quite at the level of “there’s this new paper in Nature”
Number 3346. A Radio 4 producer writes to Phil Jones about a programme they are planning. “We want to put climate change in its historical context,and examine why it’s taken 30 years to reach public/ political acceptance”, hw writes. Jones gives him the information he wants and adds
“Even though the issue has the prominence it has, not much has
happened to reduce future impacts. Many govts are stalling and there is still a band of skeptics making lots of waves trying to muddy waters. The BBC is raising the issue at every opportunity, so you’re doing your bit.”
Impartial broadcaster or campaigning group? Phil Jones knows the answer.
The last email release was ClimateGate. This is looking more and more like BBC-Gate
the moonbats might pretend on the outside that climategateII is nothing, but inside, they must be suicidal over the fact that Brits dont believe their propaganda
08457 909090 – the samaritans. dont kill yourself beeboids. i want you tried and executed for your attempts at social egineering the licence payer, iranian style
đŸ™‚
So, what’s to be done, then?
What a fucking shower, corrupt and shady “scientists” with a corrupt and shady “national broadcaster” crawling up their nether regions for mutual, er, “relief”.
Close down the CRU ,and close down the BBC – both have proved themselves to be totally unfit for purpose, and a gross waste of taxpayers’ money.
‘So, what’s to be done, then? ‘
This, especially on top of realising the Newsnight/Watts manipulation resulted in NO conseqeunces, really has me teetering on cancelling the licence fee.
But I know the state, supported by all from my DP-addicted MP downwards, will do eveything in its power to fine me or worse, unless I engage in the daft shenanigans some advocate to avoid being ‘caught’.
I want to cease paying in legitimate protest, and explain up front that being served maniuplated editorial is not a service that is fit for purpose, contrary to any contract terms, the Charter, and actively undermined democratci free speech.
Some might even agree with that and join in, but with a family and career, I’m even still unsure if I’m ready for such a Spartacus moment.
That is the position the country’s ‘most trusted’ Aunty has placed me in.
Unique. And it blows.
Number 3411. BBC News and Current Affairs are to to be briefed on the upcoming year 2000 UN climate talks. Dr Joe Smith is on the job, and approaches UEA’s Mike Hulme.
“Dear Dr. Hulme
I’m writing to ask if you would be willing to contribute to a briefing
meeting for BBC news and current affairs in advance of the forthcoming UN climate talks.
This forms part of the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme of seminarss that I run jointly with Roger Harrabin of the BBC R4 Today Programm.”
I haven’t come across a reply, so I don’t know if Hulme attended. There were to be two other contributors. I’m betting the addtional two weren’t in any way sceptical about climate change.
“Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.”
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/23/why-tyndall-sponsored-cmep.html
Sorry this was posted above – but it seems to fit with the last post
No doubt, others will have seen Newsnight and its “Climategate e-mails” piece last night.
One Beeboid talks to his science wallah in effect…and Esler gives the idea that all this is a predictable tactic pripr to the coming Green Summit…those rogues did it before Copenhagen, and they`re at it again. That`s the BBCs line and that`ll be the end of THAT!
Susan Watts was certainly conserving energy last night…truly a case of scientists losing any independent mindset the longer thay leave their brains at that reception of theirs!
Maybe Salford might just be better for them all…
Also note how the BBC tried to make out this was a criminal act (theft) and that the Police will be investigating.
The BBC had NO issues with Wikileaks nor did the BBC have a problem with the Guardian getting information from the Met Police.
‘nor did the BBC have a problem with the Guardian getting information from the Met Police.’
Looking at SKY this morning, maybe they need to get in West Yorkshire’s finest, who seem keen to push as genuine a letter on sensible householder security from a 16yo burglar moved to offer advice.
Now all our media are happy to punt out any PR fare as ‘news’, the circle is squared. Not sure faith in anything the estabslishment utters, from authority to complicit media, is well served.
Isn’t it interesting just how much the BBC crop up in Climategate? You don’t see much reference to other TV outlets.
Someone has counted 257 emails referring to people at the BBC or from/to people at the BBC.
257 out of 5000 released emails.
The BBC is right up the fundament of the green industry.
These are otherwise intelligent people. They know they are riding the Big Green Gravy Train.They know they are copy and pasting activist briefings. They knowingly condemn those who will not join their dishonest charade or who stand up against them.
They must know they have sided with wrong, the whole business of CO2 and climate are just fiction. Their fingers are now in their ears and they are whistling as loud as they can. Can’t hear you! Emails were stolen! Doesn’t count! Their silence is more damning than anything they might say. They have supped with the devil. They are now owned. They are the damned.
talktothewall@bbc.co.uk this is the email address to write in to get your pet peeve on the BBC’s That’s Britain show’s wall.
I would love to see the BBC in big letters on their wall.
Just send them an email at the above sddress with BBC in the subject line.
UEA is a political pressure group.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=3384
This is unbelievable. Here is the forwarder
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
And here is the source of the “petition”
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/laura-middleton/31/2a/567
Notice the BBC connection.
For David Gregory:
“The news media failed to truthfully report the heat wave in two important respects:
it failed to accurately reflect the overwhelming consensus of the two thousand scientists involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”
So in 2 years it went from 3 to 2,000 so today it should be just Black and You.
What a vacuoys CV that woman has, Never done a proper day’s work yet, just living on the greenie gravy train.
31,000 v 2,000 David Gregory, that proves I am right and you are wrong. (In the BBC world where they think numbers of scientists count)
The 31,000 ‘Oregon Petition’/’Petition Project’ has been shown to be a fraudulent scam:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_denial_machine.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html
Just put up on WUWT by David L thought it was worth reposting here!
from: Phil Jones
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby”
Alex,
Of course, I’ll still talk. I was just looking at your items as the COP-10 is coming up very soon – could have started.
I managed to stop the World Service doing anything on this lot (see below).Julian could see it was just pre-COP propaganda, and all the issues are being dealt with, some better than others.
The report is not worth getting involved with as it is all the same sort
of rubbish that these groups peddle at this time.
Cheers
Phil
From: Julian Siddle [[1]REDACTEDREDACTED]
Sent: 07 December 2004 11:01
To: REDACTED
Subject: Climate change
Dear Cathy Young,
Hi I was just speaking to Emma in your press office who suggested I send you an email. I am a radio producer with the BBC World Service responsible for science news coverage.
I have received a press release, copied below, from a group which
fundementally opposes the conventional views of climate change. Please could you show this to your colleagues in the climate research unit, I would be interested in their views on the assertions put forward in the release.
Unfortunately I do not have the full report at present.
Please could they comment on the assertions which follow the paragraph ‘There are key issues that must be better understood if policy is to more closely match current knowledge levels. Examples of issues that are not adequately understood in the climate debate include:’
I am hoping to produce a news report about this later today for broadcast after midnight. Please do give me a call with any questions.
Many thanks
Julian
Julian Siddle
BBC Science Radio
Bush House
London
WC2B 4PH
I think the AGW scam is still only kept alive by people who benefit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/nov/23/climate-change-scepticism-hacked-climate-science-emails#start-of-comments
Most of the comments tell how this scam is now becoming undone.
“Spot the difference:
Bradley Manning – Good for leaking emails
Unknown hacker – Bad for leaking emails
Obviously leaking emails depends entirely on your political persuasion.” Recommend? (72)
News management, not news reporting. Propaganda plain and simple. They rush to their poisonous friends for help with rebuttal – they can’t do their own job.
file under Climate Science Fiction.
BBC Climate Change Seminar
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1028
Dear Mike
We are writing to some alumni of the University of Cambridge Media and Environment seminars gathering ideas for the BBC’s coverage of the Rio+10 Earth Summit in a year’s time. Before the Rio summit, the BBC held the One World festival, which included some memorable broadcasting – particularly a feature drama on refugees. Some broadcasting is already in the pipeline that will relate to the themes of Rio+ 10, but this is an open opportunity for you to put forward ideas that will be collated and circulated amongst relevant BBC decision-makers.
* What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current
affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc?
* How can the BBC convey the theme of sustainable development to
viewers and listeners who have probably seen all the issues raised before?
* Is there any scope for a global broadcasting initiative?
* What are the strongest themes and specific issues that should appear
in the media in the months and years following the conference?
If you have thoughts, please send your reply both to this email and copy to
REDACTED. We will also draw on the information gathered in planning
a new three year programme of media seminars.
Best wishes
Joe and Roger
Joe Smith and Roger Harrabin
University of Cambridge Media and Environment Programme
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=3707
What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current
affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc?
Seems Harrabin wants the “cause” mentioned in all of the BBCs output.
“Game shows” !? Maybe Dame Nikki could cover that one
I like this one. Nice to see even the Beeboids think the concept of being impartial is laughable.
email # 4894.txt:
date: Wed Dec 8 08:25:30 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby”
At 17:27 07/12/2004, you wrote:
Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can
well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we
are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any
coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and
being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an
expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it
clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
“The Thames froze over between 1450 and 1830 because of the old London Bridge.” [Phil Jones]
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2637
And this from an email attacking Bob Carter on his science.
Actually, because of the way it restricted the tidal flow the old London Bridge made it much easier for the Thames to freeze over. Given similar temperatures today there wouldn’t be any ice fairs in the centre of London.
So the fact that this was the time of the “Little Ice Age” has no bearing at all? The bridge was not the only factor.
“The Little Ice Age meant that, prior to 1870, winter temperatures were significantly lower and harsher than in the 20th and 21st centuries, and there is still much academic and scientific debate as to why”
http://trickygirl.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/the-little-ice-age-and-londons-frost-fairs/
“ Given similar temperatures today there wouldn’t be any ice fairs in the centre of London.”
Can you give me some more info on that? In 1963 the Thames froze near windsor. Two major power stations in Central London heated the Thames, without them the river may have frozen there too.
Salford BBC Radio 5 (think of it as a very down market Manchester Guardian – you know, all the ‘right on’ views but with no visible means of support).
Weatherman this morning breathlessly rushes out the autumn temperature figures (up to 15th November so this is 5/6th of the way through the autumn). Why the hurry? I could question the timing of this….but I’m not Newsnight.
As you can guess it has been a tad warmer than usual. ‘Above average’.
Now I’m no expert on statistics but I can smell a rat when someone smuggles a dead one into a BBC studio.
As a rough figure I would venture that about 50% of outcomes in a given series of outcomes are going to be above average – statisticians will correct me if I have that wrong?
Sheer Genius. Or to the BBC, a lucky guess.
Because there has been no significant warming in the last ten years BBC environment reporting are in a panic. The game is up. All that global-communism pushed by Greenpeace will blow up in their faces. You don’t have to go there because the planet is in no danger from man and does not need to be saved. They are well and truly f*ck*d.
So if today is warmer than the the same day last year, that’ll do as proof. Quick, show a pictiure of icebergs calving, a stranded polar bear, cut to industrial chimneys belching harmless steam, and repeat “We are all doooomed unless you do exactly as we say”
What people don’t tell you is that the CET that the Met use for measuring temperatures is not one measuring station but a number that change over time. This means that a lot of messing about has to be done with the figures produced to compensate for such things as the Urban Heat Island effect.
Here is a list of stations rhat have been used.
http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/view/badc.nerc.ac.uk__ATOM__dataent_CET
Only four stations are used at any one time
Note for example that Stoneyhurst replaced Ringway in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonyhurst_Observatory
This is imprtant to know, as I, like so many others presumed that the data was being measured in the same place.
@BBCRBlack via Twitter
.@PerryStalsis1 Your tweets are defamatory. I have taken no money from UEA, was not involved in BBC climate seminars. Expect you to desist
Uh-oh. Does this mean lawyers at dawn (and on whose account?).
if every time a tweet around a BBC account is going to go off reservation and garner such a reaction, this could get expensive.
Though there may be in this, to some market rate minds, a neat way to turn twitter, uniquely, into another broadcast-only avenue (beyond blocking any who don’t ‘suit’) for enhanced narratives.
In other ‘news’, having chipped in on a few BBC blogs, I’ve found the night shift has been hard at work either referring or making demands (when the OT catch-all fails by the topic being very ‘on’ and often riased by the blog author) that anything not complimentary to the BBC, and its selective employee editors, get banned to maintain the ‘purity’ of the threads. Even simple questions can see a storm of furious reaction that is not at all ‘yawn’, oddly.
There’s a historical precedent to that digital censure rally cry that concerns me.
Clicking on @PerryStalis1 generates a “user does not exist” message. Taken down by Twitter, or is it my ignorance of this strange medium?
‘Taken down by Twitter’
Twitter is the Wild West, and the host certainly could care less about just about anything that won’t drag them down in the hoem country.
I think suggesting defamation would simply make ’em laugh and push it up the rankings.
An ‘ism accusation from a minority (Nick Clegg could help here with another daft, expensive inquiry. I am demanding one into why business is not doing as well as it might because I am quite short and balding, so tallflowinglocksism is rife, and certianly in his party) might see a reaction.
I suspect the poster took the threat serioulsy, based on the money that would get thrown behind the legals no matter what.
Which means Mr. Black got what he wanted.
Or, given the public domain nature of his BBC twitter feed… did he?
”
I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing. I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.
What you have to do is to take the numbers in column C (the years) and then those in D (the anomalies for each year), plot them and then work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. I had someone do this in early 2006, and the trend was upwards then. It will be now. Trend won’t be statistically significant, but the trend is up.”[Jones]
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119495/climategate-2-0-the-not-nice-and-clueless-phil-jones/
And this man is supposed to be a scientist. He cannot graph 2 columns in an excel spreadsheet.
How old is he? đŸ˜€
Glenn Beck’s ‘The Blaze’:
“Climatologist Involved in Climategate 2.0 Opens Himself Up to Public Questions”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/climatologist-involved-in-climategate-2-0-opens-himself-up-to-public-questions/
Great digging everyone!
I’m a bit too busy at the moment to tie up all the pieces for a blog (if anybody fancies having a go feel free) but the one thing that really jumps out is what a shameless propagandist Harrabin is. And my word what a lucrative career he’s obviously carved out for himself. I bet the BBC salary is his second income.
“What should the BBC be doing this time in terms of news, current affairs, drama, documentaries, game shows, music etc?”
I mean – WTF?!
When this sort of stuff is deemed acceptable within BBC circles it’s no great leap to imagine other back-channel discussions. How do we make Eurosceptics look bad? Obama – how do we accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative? What can we do to make the Muslim Brotherhood more palatable?
Jones has made quite a lot out of it too. If he was just a scientist in a back room, he would not be flying all around the world to “climate seminars”
“Have booked flights for Tahiti in April, just need to do the hotel now.
Cheers
Phil”
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=130
Just imagine if he gets found out – he probably would end up holidaying in Skegness!
Here we have a classic. UEA and BBC collude to get a bizzare mention of climate change into a report.
This from BBC Look East (BBC Local TV for East Anglia)
They must think we are all twats… Wind through to about a minute.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=192324587518125
Nice catch, Jim. Although I’d guess that, rather than collusion, it’s just evidence of groupthink and the endemic mindset of your colleagues.
It’s like a reflex reaction – I’m on telly talking about stuff, must mention climate change.
How would “climate change” slip off the tounge when talking about archived films? Strange
I have just found the solution to AGW. Remove a few weather stations from the sahara and add a few more in Antartica. Solved.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
Not as stupid as it sounds. If I wanted to measure the temperature of my sitting room, where do I placeythe thermometer? How do I find the ambient? it really isn’t that simple and before we know it, I’m creating computer models that take into account the wife opening the doors and the position in the room of the thermometer and its proximity to walls and windows and ceilings and carpets – then the data become fuzzy. That’s a mean temperature ina box. Nevermind a planet, riddled with academic grants if you can nod in a certain political direction…