Justin Webb didn’t have a good day yesterday…….here’s yet another example….
Lock, stock and barrel from Bishop Hill:
The unmentionables
The BBC’s decision to part company with the Met Office has provoked a great deal of comment over the weekend (and a cartoon or two as well). Returning to my desk this morning I expected that the story would have run out of legs, but it has just been given a new lease of life via the Today programme.
I’ve attached the audio file below. Justin Webb was discussing possible reasons for the the BBC’s decision and he mentioned that some people had suggested that this might have something to do with the Met Office’s stance on climate change. Given that the BBC is now arguably rather more alarmist than the Met Office, however, this seems somewhat counterintuitive.
To be fair it was just a throwaway comment, the aural equivalent of clickbait, and at least one bottom feeder has swallowed it whole.
Predictably bogus claim by @JustinOnWeb on @BBCr4today that BBC may have ditched @metoffice over climate change. Pure ‘sceptic’ propaganda.
— Bob Ward (@ret_ward) August 24, 2015
It is about time @BBCr4today had a clear out of its dinosaur presenters who promote the propaganda of climate change ‘sceptics’.
— Bob Ward (@ret_ward) August 24, 2015
Stand back and admire, gentle readers, the majesty of a public-funded bureaucrat demanding that a public-funded journalist lose his job because he merely mentioned the existence of views that the bureaucrat found distasteful. What a shameful place the London School of Economics has become.
The interview…..
Bob Ward, funded by Big Oil and Jeremy Grantham….not a scientist, just a PR monkey, a mercenary attack dog set to close down debate about the science….why so scared if the science is real?
Maybe Richard Black will be penning another green inked scrawl of outrage to the Guardian over this betrayal by the BBC.
Hard not to snigger… just a little.
There’s a list somewhere of a bunch of folk who could get together to settle this.
Maybe Hugs could be persuaded to share it? In secret, internally, of course.
My first reaction was that the BBC must have found a provider that is even more warmist than the Met. Time will tell.
Looks like the Met Office is not going to take the Beebs decision lying down. Article in today’s FT says its considering legal action.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7339119e-4a6d-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html#axzz3joOee8mr
Legal enforcement to compel ongoing payment for a poor service?
Some may see certain ironies to that.
I think the Met’s case is to do with it being barred from the BBC’s tender process, not the service it provides.
So the taxpayer has to pay for the BBC, the Met and the legal fees ?
The Met Office – who have for years been regular ‘Little Helpers’ to the discredited IPCC’s Summary For Policymakers reports – naturally feel betrayed by their paymasters at the BBC. Haven’t the Met Office done all that was asked of them re: CAGW and propagating The Approved Narrative? Every time we have an unusually warm day or an unusually cold day the Met Office can be found getting over-excited and over-eager to start pronouncing on ‘records broken’ and ‘unprecedented’ this or that. Telling porkies on live TV and radio to serve The Narrative – just as they were paid to do.
What goes round comes round, etc. Forgive me if I don’t give a solitary…well, you know what.
I think I read somewhere that it is to do with an EU directive that says that Met provision (or it could be any outside service) has to be put out to tender and this is just the BBC being business like so that the Met office will come back with a cheaper offer. They currently cost in the region of £30 million. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the BBC’s fanatical view on ‘Climate Change’.