Here, David Rose of the Mail on Sunday does a very creditable job for the second week running in teasing out the BBC’s cosy links to the eco fanatics at the University of East Anglia. I particularly like that he has spotted that one of the Cilmategate 2 emails was from the producer of an Alan Titchmarsh series, underlining the extent to which ecomania has seeped into the DNA of almost everyone at the BBC. Most of this info, of course, has been already revealed on this and other websites such as Bishop Hill. But finally, parts of the MSM seem to be waking up to the climate change scam and the BBC’s role as propagandist-in-chief. Yet the BBC ploughs on regardless – perhaps the most disturbing element of the David Rose article is that despite all the shenanigans that have surfaced in the emails, the BBC still blithely insists that it is “impartial”.
Meanwhile, Richard Black, the principal propagandist for the “impartial” corporation, continues to file alarmist garbage with wearisome predictability. Here, he is lamenting that the Durban climate change boondoggle possibly won’t result in an agreement, and acting as His Master’s Voice for the ludicrous (we have ways of making you freeze) Chris Huhne.
They certainly know their stuff at the BBC. They need to keep telling the Big Lie. They also know that the trick with it is simply to never, never ever acknowledge the argument against them. Once they acknowledge it they have lost.
If they keep on with their narrative, they know that at present the MSM is not sufficiently cohesive enough to to strike anything more than glancing blows at the state owned monopoly..
The good news however is that the BBC will ultimately wander into territory in which they become viewed as a farce.
Well said. Sums up the situation in one post. FARCE is the only word to use.
EVIL is another.
The good news however is that the BBC will ultimately wander into territory in which they become viewed as a farce
But that is also the bad news – as i wrote (http://www.frankfisher.org/?p=120)in response to Climategate1, and the attempted MSM whitewash at the time, the Established power cannot afford to lose control of the narrative. Maintaining their bogus stories that ‘manufacture consent’ is how these fake democracies work – it’s not incidental to their business, it’s core. So, when the full might of the MSM is torn apart by t’internet, when their big lie is laughed at, they’re going to fight back. How? Two options: a bigger better lie, or a gagged and emasculated internet.
Which do we think is more likely?
Naturally, the BBC is besotted with the idea that we are responsible for all of the ills of the World and should thus be made to pay for them. Poverty in Africa and Asia, largely the result of ever-increasing overpopulation and longstanding corruption, is the real driver of environmental degradation, yet this line of thought isn’t given an airing on the BBC, presumably because its apparatchiks perceive these facts to be in some way ‘racist’.
As for the disputes around our understanding of what drives the climate, nobody can factually claim to fully understand how it operates, for it is currently beyond our ken. That of course, doesn’t stop lobbyists with highly politicised agendas banging whichever drum they think possesses the loudest and most agreeable sound: <!–[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser /> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]–>
http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2011/11/politics-of-climate-science-energy.html
I don’t know how we are ever going to hold the BBC to account for it’s blatant – and wholly unashamed – proAGW bias. It’s so obvious now that it’s becoming a real embarassment. But the voices and opinions of ‘little people’ outside of the self-important BBC media bubble just do not ever get heard and if they, by some chance, do get heard they are quickly patronised (if not insulted) by the gate-keepers at the Beeb.
It’s wholly unacceptable that the BBC be permitted to continue down this proAGW propaganda route; it’s effect is pernicious, polluting every possible chance of rational, fair-minded discussion of the subject.
Perhaps this issue, above all others, more than clearly exposes to even the most doubtful the true extent of the lie at the heart of the BBC’s devalued, hollow claims of ‘impartiality’.
Back in the day, there was dismay from British farmers at the direction of “farming” programs on both radio 4 and TV as they slowly went “green”. “Countryfile” was one such. Farmers expressed their concern only to be rebuffed with disdain by the know-alls in charge. I’m glad to see they are being uncovered as purveyers of propganda. Here is an example: you can find this webpage via “Countryfile”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r4wn
not al beeb as such
but anyone read yer man lean the eco mentalist correspondent’s column in yesterdays telegraph?
utter laa laa land head in the sand buffoonery…..climategate 2 is an irrelevance apparently 🙂
Oh, yes – and told him what I thought, too.
Unlike more respectable bloggers like Delingpole, I doubt if Lean (or Louise Gray) ever bother to read their commenters input, – if they did, they might have been tempted to look for another occupation.
Fucking copy-and-paste, left-wing, greenie imbeciles.
I do love how the bBC claims thate verything is down to global warming. Note this story about a church in leicester which is falling to bits over a lack of rain.
Fears Leicestershire church could ‘split in two’
A church in north-west Leicestershire is facing a huge repair bill to stop its tower separating from its nave.A lack of rain during the summer dried out the subsoil at St Peter’s in Thornton, causing the building to move.
So lets see a 800 year old church is falling to bits and the bBC blames a lack of rain (err the area received 61% of the average amount of rain for the year) and not old age as the reason why.
The funny thing is a quick google shows that the church is only 50 metres away from Thornton Reservoir, I wonder how much effect having a large body of water close to a heavy tower for over 100 years has impacted on the local ground conditions. But hey according to the bbC global warming is to blame.
the bbc has more religous output than any other channel
it just happens to be the eco greenie MMGW cult that is the religion concerned
But still the Tory party remain silent, yes I know that many of them have bought into this left wing bollocks but there are many many Tories who think like most of the people it’s for the most part a con.
But why are they not making camerons life miserable? They should be demanding a proper public inquiry into the activites of the BBC and it’s left wing morons.
Perhaps we need to know how many Tories have climbed on board the Climate Gravy Train, as owners/investors in wind farms like Cameron’s father-in-law, are consultants to energy firms, on the board of solar panel installers, recieve regular mailings from Greenpeace or WWF, or have gone on fact finding missions to count polar bears?
So basically, all those times when people here were complaining that the BBC stuck a gratuitous mention of Global Warming into all kinds of shows, it wasn’t just silly paranoia. They really do have an agenda.
. . . and David Gregory? ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (© Martin or David Preiser)
“i’ve gone of these somewhere… here you go…. *sigh*”©David Gregory
But what does it mean? 🙁
No idea – it must be a ‘twitterism’ – We no longer have BBC English we now have BBC Twitter English.
Richard Black has followed up the Huhne article with another one pushing the same line. but even more strongly:
Climate summit faces big emitters’ stalling tactics
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15894948
As you read through the long article, you think “Surely, he’s got to give the other side of the argument (those who don’t want a quick ‘climate deal’) their say too.”
But no.
An unnamed “experienced delegate” begins Black’s chorus of complaint, followed by an Argentinian pushing the same “Hurry up!” line, then (after the president of the Maldives, pushing the same line) comes the obligatory moan from an environmentalist NGO also pushing the same line – not that you would know that it’s a green pressure group from the way Tricky Dickie describes (or fails to describe) the organisation:
Mark Roberts, international policy advisor for the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA).
Who’s next? Another NGO spokesman, Tim Gore of Oxfam, who pushes the same line too.
As many commenters here have been saying, Richard Black is a campaigner rather than a journalist. Impartiality seems to mean very little to him. This article, however, is about politics, not science, and there’s no way it should be presenting just one side of the argument at such length.
” . . there’s no way it should be presenting just one side of the argument at such length.”
Isn’t that the reason this website was established . . and continues?
If they ever call David Gregory to give an account of BBC “Science reporting” This would probably be his answer:
“i’ve gone of these somewhere… here you go…. *sigh*”
Whatever that means.
Also, some leftist imperialism:
“Rich nations accused of climate-change ‘bullying'”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/rich-nations-accused-of-climatechange-bullying-6268679.html
Labour MP Graham Stringer last night said he would be writing this week to BBC director-general Mark Thompson to demand an investigation into the Corporation’s relationship with UEA
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music–game-shows.html#ixzz1evLFxsuF
Who would conduct the investigation? The whole establishment is so corrupt there would not be that many honest people to make a quorum.
It is not just in AGW that the BBC consult narrowly. The BBc “reporters” just rely on their “followers” on Twitter. Saves time and expense. Its called “lazy journalism” .
The Labour government had a similar system, it was called “consultation”, where only certain groups who agreed with labour Party policy were actually asked to comment.
This is interesting:
Yes, John: Steve Jones Is Wrong And The BBC Totally Unbalanced On Climate Change
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/yes-john-steve-jones-is-wrong-and-the-bbc-totally-unbalanced-on-climate-change/
Hilarious. The only thing missing is the section on telling the time: A che ora inizia venerdî preghiere?
Now say after me
“Cambiamento climatico è reale e l’uomo responsabile”
How the bBC inserts ambiguity into its reporting in which to champion its pro GW agenda
Water surge prompts Norfolk and Suffolk flood warnings
Residents are being told to move their possessions to safety as flood warnings are issued for the Norfolk and Suffolk coast. The Environment Agency (EA) issued the warnings because a surge of water is due to hit north Norfolk at 19:50 GMT, before moving along the Suffolk coast.Valuables and insurance documents should be moved upstairs in affected homes, an EA spokeswoman said. Air holes in bricks should also be covered to stop rising water, she said.
So reading the above, what is causing this so called flood warning? As the bBC coverage is somewhat vague. Oh hang on here’s the only snippet from that bBC article on what may lay behind this flood warning:
David Kemp, from the Environment Agency, said a storm passing over Scotland overnight had caused a surge of water in the North Sea.
Ah, so its a tidal surge caused by a storm over the North sea which is coinciding with a high tide, plus strong winds. (Known as wind over tide) resulting in a tidal surge. You know just like what happened during Jan 1953. I wonder why the bBC left out that story, instead focusing on flood warnings without giving the full reason why.
Answers on the back of a postage stamp to Richard Black at the bBC.
Yes, it was just a 948mb low coming straight over Scotland from the Atlantic.
A deep depression but not that uncommon at this time of year.
.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/newsbytes-bbc-in-cahoots-with-climategate-scientists-prime-minister-green-guru-publicly-doubts-climate-change/
i posted this in the open thread, but i think its relevent to this thread so i’ll post it here as well
ive stumbled across a NGO climate change pressure group that makes reference to our good friend Dick Black in relation to the Durban IPCC moonbat festival
the oneworldgroup whose aims include using the media in order to support the climate movement. in depth in the link below
http://oneworldgroup.org/oneclimate-about
now the scandalous bit in an entry in the blog by Bill Gunyon
“Pity us poor journalists and bloggers striving to articulate sound climate change stories with the latest IPCC report poised over our shaky savvy on probability. I’ve resolved to reduce its complex findings on extreme weather and disaster risk as follows:
we’re dead certain that temperatures will rise but long range weather forecasting will be a problem
IPCC won’t commit on rainfall projections. Fair enough but I think the report’s low-octane interpretation of uncertainty does rather overlook the precautionary principle demanded by the 1992 UN Convention. Journalists such as Richard Black of the BBC appear willing to toe this line
willing to toe the line eh? How about the BBC’s so called climate change expert actually does his job rather than doing what he is told to do by a political pressure group?
its pointless to send Dick Black to SA because we already know what he’s going to report.
http://oneworldgroup.org/2011/11/24/live-updates-from-2359-17-nov-to-2359-19-nov/
“Is the global warming scare the greatest delusion in history?”
(by Christopher Booker)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8917737/Is-the-global-warming-scare-the-greatest-delusion-in-history.html
What causes me to raise an eyebrow, even higher than usual, is why when the government has every reason to suspend wasting further taxpayers money on a suspicious climate change agenda, particularly when our finances are in the s**t, yet they still go ahead with this
£1 billion of UK aid to fight climate change in Africa
It’s not just some at the BBC that’s getting VERY rich out of this, and wants this propaganda to continue.
I see Sky News are running the Guido Fawkes story about the Daily Mirror phone hacking allegations by alistair Campbell.
But over at the BBC zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
‘I don’t consider myself a public servant’ wrote publically employed Phil Jones of Climategate fame.
He’s not alone.
The majority of those employed by the public, including those at the BBC, don’t regard themselves as our servants, but as our masters.
They have only two demands. Our cash and our obedience.
The BBC is part of a new sort of feudalism where the common people pay their alleged betters for permission to live and breathe.
Is Roger reporting the COP confrence from the UK, or did he get a nice taxpayer funded trip to Durban?
License payers would like to know.
John Pinhead on Radio was less than impressed tonight when he interviewed 2 people in Croydon one who blamed Gordon Brown for the mess “you’re aTory!” squealed Pinhead, funny that on the BBC if someone slags off Cameron they are not accused of being a Socialist.
Then pinhead was upset with someone else who rightly pointed out that the foreign workers in the UK were quite often sending money out of the Country back to thier homeland and so not helping our economy.
Pinhead managed to turn that into an anti immigrant slur even though the person actually said they don’t blame them for doing it.
Lies and smears all the way with Radio 5.
After ClimateGate I enquiries such as the Muir Russell review at UEA appeared to have been mostly cosy whitewashes. One argument they used was that the emails released at that time might have been misconstrued – by being taken out of context.
ClimateGate II sets much more of the real context. Richard Black rushed to judgment – “Nothing much to see here, move along now”………
But how could Black possibly defend Prof Phil Jones and the UAE against the serious charges now being made by one of the scientists who were refused access to data. This post from WattsUpWithThat directly accuses Jones of being a serial liar – and sets out the full context.
In a decent world, Joneds should have resigned last time round. This time round – how can he possibly avoid resignation ?
It really is reminiscent of Watergate. It wasn’t the original crime that sunk Nixon – it was the subsequent cover-ups and lies, which eventually fell apart.
And shouldn’t Acton, who must have had access to the full context of what had been happening, but who defended Jones in spite of serious evidence against him, also resign ? For incompetence if not for collusion ?
One possible line of enquiry looks like being – did Jones and/or Acton lie to Parliament ?
here is the WUWT link to the charges against Phil Jones :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/an-open-letter-to-dr-phil-jones-of-the-uea-cru/
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive”
I read this it is a fantastic letter from someone who has first hand experience of the lies and deceit of the greenish and their useful morons in the free ?? lol media !
BREAKING: Canada to pull out of Kyoto Protocol Posted on November 27, 2011 by Anthony Watts
CTVNews.ca Staff
Date: Sun. Nov. 27 2011 10:08 PM ET
Canada will announce next month that it will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, CTV News has learned.
The Harper government has tentatively planned an announcement for a few days before Christmas, CTV’s Roger Smith reported Sunday evening.
The developments come as Environment Minister Peter Kent prepares for a climate conference in Durban, South Africa that opens on Monday, with delegates from 190 countries seeking a new international agreement for cutting emissions.
Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111127/durban-south-africa-slimate-conference-setup-111127/#ixzz1eyQ9c2fE
h/t to WUWT reader Howard B
I know that the BBC has blackballed Canada, it no longer exists in the eyes of the BBC, I wonder when the BBC will report this little nugget?
Here is another one of those emails that David Gregory thinks is of no interest, as you will see the science is far from settled and in fact far from scientists being certain, they really have very little idea of what is going on. These are the emails that the BBC will never show.
Email 536 An excerpt of email from David Thompson of Colorado State to Phil Jones:
…As for the dip in 1945. After iterating with John Kennedy, it appears that the dip in 1945 corresponds to a sudden drop in US measurements in Aug 1945 (the US measurements were known
to be biased warm, so the cooling is consistent with the loss of US data). But it is also now clear that the SST is fraught with many instrument changes between the 30s and 1961. So
a conclusion we’ll likely make is that the trend in SSTs between 1900 and the present is reliable, but the behavior of the time series from the 1930s to the 1960s is not.
That the data are so unreliable between the 30s and 60s means we don’t know for sure what happened in terms of global-mean temperatures during that period. In fact, if you blank out the data from the 30s to the 60s, you can actually imagine the globe warming weakly but continuously during that period…
Hence, the only real evidence we have of a midcentury about-turn in global warming comes from the land data.
Full email
date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:48:58 +1100 from: David Thompson <davet@atmos.xxxxx> subject: a quick comment and a quick question to: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.xxxx> Phil, The comment…. Thanks for the thoughts on the volcano plots. I’ve spent the last few days playing with different analyses, and I think I’m converging on the main points to make in the paper. It’s my impression that almost all aspects of the volcanic signal have been discussed in the literature, except for the longish timescale suggested by the residual data and the detrending. For sure the timescale is sensitive to the detrending, and I’ll be very careful about that in the writing. But I think using the residual data we can get folks chatting about the possibility that volcanoes impact SSTs much longer than the ~2-4 years suggested by the current literature. Anyway…. that’s how I’m leaning on the results. I should have some text ready soon… The question…. As for the dip in 1945. After iterating with John Kennedy, it appears that the dip in 1945 corresponds to a sudden drop in US measurements in Aug 1945 (the US measurements were known to be biased warm, so the cooling is consistent with the loss of US data). But it is also now clear that the SST is fraught with many instrument changes between the 30s and 1961. So a conclusion we’ll likely make is that the trend in SSTs between 1900 and the present is reliable, but the behavior of the time series from the 1930s to the 1960s is not. That the data are so unreliable between the 30s and 60s means we don’t know for sure what happened in terms of global-mean temperatures during that period. In fact, if you blank out the data from the 30s to the 60s, you can actually imagine the globe warming weakly but continuously during that period… Hence, the only real evidence we have of a midcentury about-turn in global warming comes from the land data. Are there any similar data issues in the land data during the period ~1939-1960? Thanks, Dave ——————————————————————– ——————————————————————– David W. J. Thompson http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet Dept of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA Phone: 970-xxx Fax: 970-xxx
They published my comment and it has 1189 green arrows at the time of writing:
“The ‘climate change’ hoax will go down as the biggest con in history. It’s such a shame that our economy will be ruined and thousands of old people will freeze to death before the politicians realise this.
The BBC is a joke too. Abolish the licence fee now!”
Alan Jones interviews Patrick Michaels – worth a listen (as Alan Jones always is – he hates JuLIAR Gillard).
Michaels makes the point that so many drama broadcasts are laced with the greenie meme as part of the storyboard.
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=10939
The climatesceptic professor was at the Uni of Virginia – isn’t that where Michael Mann put together the original Hockey Stick fraud ?
I see the BBC are spinning for the public sector scum once again, so the BBC really thinks that most people support the public sector strikes, yet every other opinion poll says the opposite.
The BBC use comres which just by chance of course is used by…..The Guardian.
Well there’s a shock.
I suspect the BBC is salivating for Wednesday to come, can I suggest a thread for the strike and the BBC’s one sided reporting that will take place?
Let’s see: perhaps it will be something like:
Strikes have support of the majority of the public.
Bankers were bailed out, and it’s wrong to make the public sector workers pay for a mess they didn’t create.
Strikes are peaceful, fun-filled atmosphere, workers brought their families, smiles all round from Beeboids on the scene.
Obligatory half-hearted attempt to tell one union mouthpiece that public sector pay and pensions are still better than most of private sector. Point easily dodged, no further challenge.
Nobody will tell the union mouthpieces that Labour promised them a rose garden but left you with a desert landscape.
We got it about right.
Slightly tangential (but connected): the Registrar of Companies will be affected by the strike of the parasites on Wednesday. Usually when there is an upcoming strike affecting the Registrar’s services, all that’s announced online is that “forthcoming industrial action on such and such a day may affect services”. But this time, the parasites have inserted this little piece of propaganda onto the Registrar’s online pages as follows:
Please be aware that up to 3 million public sector workers including civil servants, nurses and teachers, are expected to take part in a day of industrial action over pension reforms on Wednesday 30th November 2011 and this action will affect Companies House.
So the parasites at Companies House are using taxpayer-funded facilities to transmit propaganda to those same taxpayers that the “angels” of the NHS (pause for hollow laugh) and the enablers of the new illiteracy in the UK are going to be joined by their colleagues in Companies House in trying to keep screwing those who pay their wages. It’s not just the BBC misusing taxpayers’ money.
An excellent piece by the eminent Melanie Phillips on the subject.
Another journalistic scandal — so where’s the outrage?
As Melanie says – David Rose appears to be the only journalist who has published anything in the UK national press that is critical of the incestuous links between the BBC and the Warmists at UEA. Other than Rose – and bloggers – a journalistic scandal is so far being buried in UK media.
But truth’s a chiel that winnae die, and cannae be disputed. The scandal has been largely suppressed in the media, but I sense that the story still has legs.
And meanwhile – Durban is dead as a dodo.
The most potent potential opposition to Warmism and the disastrous policies it has caused could lie in HM Treasury, I believe. If and when it came to a real fight, Osborne v Huhne / HM Treasury v the Department of Energy and Climate Change, there’d be no contest. Huhne could disappear in a trice – and his Department could be swallowed up in a Whitehall reorganisation that ditches the ludicrous Climate Change tag.
But meanwhile, the Warmism cult is like a steamroller – no forward speed of advance but its huge mass gives it lots of momentum. Roll on ClimateGate 3, or further enquiries by Graham Stringer – or a curve ball like Michael Mann being forced in court to reveal his Penn U emails. And the distinct possibility that a new US President could cause a major change of course.