Biased BBC’s Alan notes;
“Richard Black illustrates why he is not a good journalist…allowing prejudice and bad judgement to influence his reporting. On Twitter he claims people who don’t follow the ‘consensus’ in science damage the planet…meaning the ‘Sceptics’ on AGW except his example would actually denounce the BRIC countries that are being allowed to carry on pumping out CO2 to enable them to industrialize (if the CO2 issue is so important, ie the planet is going to die if we continue producing CO2, how is possible to allow that?).
14:31 UK time, Thursday, 29 December 2011
@BBCRBlack via Twitter
‘Record year’ for ivory seizures – or how beliefs that run counter to science damage the environment http://t.co/Ad80vi3J
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16353204
“I fear the criminals are winning,” he said.
‘Some environmental campaigners say the decision to allow some southern African countries, whose elephants populations are booming, to sell their stockpiles of ivory has fuelled the illegal trade.
Those countries – South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe – however, deny this and argue they should be rewarded for looking after their elephant populations.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4650878.stm
Will Kyoto die at Canadian hands?
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website
Is Canada’s newly elected Conservative Party now preparing to don the mantle of Darth Vader and emasculate the protocol to the point of impotence?
In this Black claims only the Canadian Conservatives believe the Kyoto Protocol is completely ineffective…..history now tells us most countries think that. What is interesting is that Canada has now pulled out of the climate agreements….it was a big story….but Black ignore’s this event….
Canadian Senate Climate Science and Economics Hearing – 15/12/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMQk-q8SpBU&feature=player_embedded#!
….which has prominent and qualified sceptics reporting to the Canadian Senate.
I wonder why Black isn’t too keen to have you see this…could it be that the arguments made are compelling and credible whilst pro AGW voices have been shown to be corrupt, inept and unscientific?
‘On Twitter he claims..’
He is not a very good anything, especially a journalist.
The few times he actually allows any interactivity on his ‘reporting’ it is filleted for inaccuracy and partiality.
Hence reduced to ‘claiming’ on the BBC’s news favoured ‘source’: twitter.
Given the importance of this beat, why I am compelled to pay £145.50pa to a £4Bpa media monoploy to re-educate and mis-inform in such a manner is vexing.
Mr Black’s failure to carry any coverage regarding that damning Canadian Senate Hearing in which four climate scientists testify as AGW skeptics is hardly surprising. It just doesn’t fit the dominant narrative The Corporation wishes to propagandize. If something is ‘off-message’ in this way (irrespective of the experts involved) it simply will not get reported by the BBC.
As we go into 2012 I urge all AGW skeptics (there is no such thing as a ‘climate skeptic’ by the way, so please do not allow devious AGW zealots to muddle the terminology in such a deliberate way) to keep up the good fight – the BBC will not go down on this issue without an unholy fight. They have staked so much on their (increasingly tenuous) position on AGW it goes without saying.
The BBC will never “go down on this issue”. The most you can expect (cf the BBC celebrations concerning the creation of the eurozone 10 years ago) is silence. BBC support by and through Black, Shukman, Harrabin et al for and one-way reportage concerning CAGW will just go straight down the memory hole. If the issue ever comes up in a generation or two the BBC response will be that it got its coverage of AGW “just about right”.