James Delingpole is pretty good here …
Yesterday I asked of lying liar climate ‘scientist’ Michael Mann: “Does anyone take this guy seriously any more?” But the question was a purely rhetorical one. I already knew the depressing true answer having just sat, fuming, in my car listening to Mann being given the red carpet treatment on a BBC Radio 4 science programme.
“Oh Professor Doctor Mann, Sir, may it please your eminence to descend from your radiant cloud for a few precious moments and explain to us mere mortals why your amazing and unquestionably brilliant new paper on global warming demonstrates you to be even more right about climate change than you were even in the days when you won your Nobel prize?” fawned and grovelled the BBC’s interviewer from his prostrate position on the studio floor.
Perhaps I exaggerate slightly.
Read the full article – his pay off line is one I fully endorse.
Follow the money.
Government subsidies, uni stuff for academics, bbc fees for silly journos, local authority poll tax – you name it, the market’s there for non-achievers.
All paid for by Mr and Mrs Normal.
I commented on this, but it got buried way down in the depths of the mid-week open thread.
I’ll paste it here. Apologies to those who’ve seen it already.
‘Inside Science’ on R4 finds it “troubling” and “disturbing” that the Trump administration is questioning the hypothesis that man is the main driver behind climate change.
In true, balanced BBC style, they gave Michael Mann one third of the programme (ten minutes) to peddle his alarmist narrative, before moving on to the next topic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08k1b1l#play
The broadcast was a utter travesty : Think of the normal bias and double it.
– How can the presenter invite his MATE on and offer him such free kicks at his opposition ?
– How can you let him spout his propaganda, and leave out there were 3 other credible top scientists at the same desk at the same time and they OPPOSED him ?
– How come the listeners don’t get to hear that times in the hearing that Mann was caught red handed stating something was true and then been shown proof that he was wrong ?
eg When Mann denies having called anyone a denier,
and Curry points out that he did exactly that in his written testimony to this hearing !
17s video
The presenter Adam Rutherford had first built up the atmosphere by tweeting that the Mann’s testimony was
* heroic*
* dynamite * **simply factual **
The topic and context the subject is CONTROVERSIAL
but seems poor Adam Rutherford is fully in Cult-mode when it comes to Global Warming so thinks he has a higher purpose and can ignore the BBC Charter rules on IMPARTIALITY
His managers and Radio4 controller Gwyneth_Williams should pull him up on this.
He persistently has alarmist guests, but would not in a million years would allow their opinions to be challenged by airing anyone from the skeptical side
eg the other 3 scientists at the hearing , who have all in past years testified to Congress committees.
His tweets
Apply all the normal empathy substitution tests : If the scientist had been Farage would he have been allowed such free reign not to mention the other 3 scientists or that he’d been pulled up for deception ?
It’s as if a football presenter had invited his striker mate on
..Who regaled us with the story of his two goals and victory against unfair refereeing.
… But then we find out his 2 goals were own goals , and his opposition had won 3-0.
The full 2 hour video of the hearing is here
From the radio show you got the impression that it was Mann alone at a desk vs evil politicians, not that there were 3 other scientists at the desk opposing him and his political campaigning
and BishopHill has a full free discussion about it.
https://twitter.com/Cartoonsbyjosh/status/847157725788295169
Rutherford just tweeted
he gave a pathetic response to Barry Woods points
“Inside Science. We were primarily interviewing Mann on the new paper.
It was coincidental that he was just out of the hearing.”
That’s just not good enough
Imagine if an actor had just come from the Oscars, and had made a controversial speech like saying something racist.
Would he had been offered such “free kicks” against his political opposition via the BBC airwaves ?
The remedy ?
Radio 4 science used to be so much better under his predecessor Quentin Cooper who would deal with impartiality by getting both sides of a scientific argument on air in the same studio to interrogate each other, but his prog was taken off air presumable cos it would not act as a propaganda vehicle for the Global Warming cult and their greenbiz subsidy mates.
What is the latest estimate of money wasted on trying to prove Mann’s Hockey Stick?
I do not know, but I do know how the Hockey stick was disproved as a fraud:
(1) Statistical: Mathematicians found a discrepancy between the 600 year average and a 78 year average used by Mann for the end of the Hockey stick.
(2) Isotopes in tree rings: Isotopic evidence in tree rings showed that the temperature does not determine the width of tree rings. Climategate emails, hacked or leaked by an insider, verified that the tree ring data would not show the upturn in temperature after 1960. In fact, they showed a decline. So the contrivers said, “hide the decline” by replacing it with grafted on thermometer measurements. Also, the reason that the temperature does not determine the width of tree rings is that sometimes the tree rings are thin because of hot droughts, as well as the assumed cold used in the Hockey stick. Isotopic evidence showed that many of Mann’s assumptions for tree rings were wrong, and therefore constitute evidence for fraud.
(3) Beck‘s proof of Jaworowski‘s suggestion that ice cores have CO2 levels about 40 percent lower than the original atmosphere.
“Yesterday I asked of lying liar climate ‘scientist’ Michael Mann:”
A “lying liar”? Is he a double-negative? Is he actually telling the truth?
Or was it a joke? Ha ha ha.
I know what the score is here at BBBC.org. So I will not stir the shit. But shit it certainly is.
Believe the shit – believe the conspiracy. There ain’t no global warming, no siree. There ain’t no melting icecaps. There ain’t no rising temperatures.
It’s okay folks! We can keep on digging for that black gold under the grass. We ain’t got us no worries, man. We can dig and dig and dig for that black gold and we can burn it like the shit that it is.
Yeah, bruv! We ain’t got no worries about keeping ourselves in energy. There’s enough of that black stuff for all eternity! All we got to do is dig it out and burn it. Simple as that y’all.
Don’t worry ’bout running out o’ that black stuff ’cause God almighty will replenish. God in his wisdom gave us the black stuff so that we would benefit from it. To refuse His gift would be an insult!
Amen.
Edward, I admire your April Fool joke. I assume that you have watched the above video by Stew and disagree…… Please point out to me which points Mann is correct on and which points Curry/Christie/Piekle are incorrect on. I am in the process of reading “A Disgrace to the Profession.” You should try it. It shows how Mann is an outright liar.
As to running out of the black stuff – I assume you mean oil – from my childhood, back in the 50s, the oil was going to run out “within 10 – 20 years.” It is 60 years on and the price of oil is cheaper than it has been for a long time….. Yes, it WILL run out but there will always be other sources of fuel. Coal? There is believed to be about 200 years of the stuff lying around. Nuclear fuel? No problem – assuming the plants are built safely.
As to Global Warming….. It doesn’t exist. Climate Change does and always has. I am now living in Greece and I was regaled about the orange groves that used to be higher on the mountainside where this person lived. The groves are further down the mountain because….. It is colder now than when these groves were planted. Hopefully, it will get warmer.
“A Disgrace to the Profession” – a brilliant book, I bought it on Kindle a little while ago. Mann is a charlatan, and a liar, and all round bad egg.
Mark Steyn is still waiting on Michael Mann getting his legal ducks in a row. Perhaps they’ve been affected by CAGW? https://www.steynonline.com/7734/the-vertigo-at-the-top-of-the-stick
I seem to have accidentally removed a post by hitting “Report Comment” rather than “Reply”. But my reply to the post: How much has the Hockey stick cost.
I do not know, but I do know how the Hockey stick was disproved as a fraud:
(1) Statistical: Mathematicians found a discrepancy between the 600 year average and a 78 year average used by Mann for the end of the Hockey stick.
(2) Isotopes in tree rings: Isotopic evidence in tree rings showed that the temperature does not determine the width of tree rings. Climategate emails, hacked or leaked by an insider, verified that the tree ring data would not show the upturn in temperature after 1960. In fact, they showed a decline. So the contrivers said, “hide the decline” by replacing it with grafted on thermometer measurements. Also, the reason that the temperature does not determine the width of tree rings is that sometimes the tree rings are thin because of hot droughts, as well as the assumed cold used in the Hockey stick. Isotopic evidence showed that many of Mann’s assumptions for tree rings were wrong, and therefore constitute evidence for fraud.
(3) Beck‘s proof of Jaworowski‘s suggestion that ice cores have CO2 levels about 40 percent lower than the original atmosphere.
I seem to have accidentally removed a post by hitting “Report Comment” rather than “Reply”.
Same here! red faced I deserve to be!
And being half asleep, I’ve gone and done the exact same mistake again!
Steam coming out of my ears just about now!
Extra Context : There is little chance of redress : The BBC doesn’t a flying about IMPARTIALITY when pushing SJW issues is more important.
..Cos the whole point of creating the InsideScience show was to create Global Warming propaganda in the first place.
Prior to that they had a proper science show : Material Science with Quentin Cooper; their system on contentious issues was to have 2 scientists challenge each other and work through the issues. Of course that didn’t work for Greenblob people they didn’t want their global warming and solar dreams challenged.
So seemingly that why the whole show was closed down, Quentin Cooper put onto other invisible tasks and created the new show with Adam Rutherford specially recruited precisely cos he’s a True Believer..and a fanatic about supposed green stuff like solar. (and for a bonus points he’s mixed race Anglo Indian)
Seems the BBC has impartiality rule counts lower that Social Justice Evangelism
… cos they are saving the world don’tcha know ?
@Pcar something quite strange
because my Radio4 FB group first invited lots of BBC producers to join ..and then loudly complained about progs being terrible cos they dared challenge LibMob views, I felt forced to post about the terrible InsideScience bias
The LibMob commenters then reacted in a strange way..despite claiming to be tolerant and open borders people they took my daring to point out the programme bias as a TERRITORIAL affront, virtually saying ‘how dare you say that you are NOT ONE OF US”
I’ve seen that behaviour before, that to something challenging strongly held beliefs they react “Does not compute” and move into territorial mode
That cognitive dissonance of the “Does not compute” feeling ..makes them look for any small thing in your argument say 1 in 100 and use that to dismiss ALL including your other 99 points.
In the case of Simon Poole the BBC producer he said
“Impartiality doesn’t mean offering false balance.”
then
“Ah, I see the OP has posted links to Breitbart on another post to support his argument. I’m out!”
he then BLOCKED me
The ironic thing is then I can’t see what he says and he can’t read what I say
including that comment ..but I have tricks
He can converse with the rest of the group,
…isn’t that daft at one tiny point a BBC producer blocks of communication from someone not in his tribe
which of course is the ECHO-CHAMBER effect.
The point is yes in my second comment I mentioned the Delingpole deconstruction, what was I supposed to do wait until the Guardian covered it ?
…Bonkers
Stew,
You are wasting your time with that Facebook group as their description reads:-
“A celebration of the beacon of broadcasting excellence that is BBC Radio 4. For truly it is the pinnacle of entertainment, the flower of journalism and the culmination of comedy.”
The ‘three monkeys’ for Radio 4.
Despite that title much of the groups time is devoted to squealing at Radio 4 if they dare air someone who is not LibMob
Raging anger and bile
if Farage, Lawson, or Hopkins are on or if some Lefty issue is under covered
Something quite strange
because my Radio4 FB group first invited lots of BBC producers to join ..and then loudly complained about progs being terrible cos they dared challenge LibMob views, I felt forced to post about the terrible InsideScience bias
The LibMob commenters then reacted in a strange way..despite claiming to be tolerant and open borders people they took my daring to point out the programme bias as a TERRITORIAL affront, virtually saying ‘how dare you say that you are NOT ONE OF US”
I’ve seen that behaviour before, that to something challenging strongly held beliefs they react “Does not compute” and move into territorial mode
That cognitive dissonance of the “Does not compute” feeling ..makes them look for any small thing in your argument say 1 in 100 and use that to dismiss ALL including your other 99 points.
In the case of Simon Poole the BBC producer he said
“Impartiality doesn’t mean offering false balance.”
then
“Ah, I see the OP has posted links to Breitbart on another post to support his argument. I’m out!”
he then BLOCKED me
The ironic thing is then I can’t see what he says and he can’t read what I say
including that comment ..but I have tricks
He can converse with the rest of the group,
…isn’t that daft at one tiny point a BBC producer blocks of communication from someone not in his tribe
which of course is the ECHO-CHAMBER effect.
The point is yes in my second comment I mentioned the Delingpole deconstruction, what was I supposed to do wait until the Guardian covered it ?
…Bonkers
..10 other people moved to dismiss by tagging my comment
“The fact that you’ve thrown ‘SJW’ in there as a pejorative tells me everything I need to know about you, and your opinions. You are allying yourself with some deeply unpleasant people ”
BUT I hadn’t used the phrase SJW
I’d just ended the post
“Seems the BBC impartiality rule counts lower than Social Justice Evangelism”
but that is NOT a pejorative
it was just an opinion on priorities
Not one person actually tackled my 4 question point , instead some went for 97% and other topics I hadn’t mentioned
” 97% of scientists in the field agree that man made climate change is happening so I think it only reasonable that a science program reflect that consensus.”
(All 3 97% surveys are bogus due to sample size and other fixings ..as well as being the Fallacy or Argument From Authority, and fallacy Ad Popularum ..I can’t tell them that they’ll explode)
I also can’t out point out their own contradiction. : If 97% is important then why did the Inside Prog HIDE the input of 75% of scientists at the table with Mann.
“climate change is all about the giant oil companies lobbying governments in order that they can continue to pursue their dodgy practices ”
Wacky Conspiracy theory with no evidence ..My theory is that the oil corps are all on board ith alarmism cos anything that pushes up oil prices pushes up easy profits , without having to get more oil.
“He stamped all over a cute little puppy”
Is a dark PR technique I guess
You Person-B just twist or make up what a person-A just said
….. That way everyone will agree that
“stamping all over a cute little puppy” is not nice so Person-A is not nice
.. and thus dismiss Person-A’s perfectly valid point
I found it strange that commenters were using intimidation to discourage me from speaking
Cos days earlier they’d had a massive hate-athon throwing insults at Katie Hopkins cos the Media Show had dared to air her, with both the aggressive presenter and a media lawyer guy grilling her.
So much more balanced than the Mann “free kick a thon”
First they practicedd shunning – and didn’t reply yo my rebutts, but continued their own SJW points
Then a few hours later they closed that discussion down on spurious grounds
What “over heated” ?
emm apart from their initial snarling there was nothing heated.
.and for years this group never closed any posts at all, it’s only since she grabbed control)
What I have seen is entryism in practice
..Over 4 months one of the LibMob somehow got hold of the moderating stick has now started to mould the group to be become a LibMob echo chamber
They throw insults like crazy, yet when one guy stood up to them, she kicked him out.
As I said that would be trivial, but they seemed to pull some other stunt by adding heaps of BBC staff to the group without those staff EVEN asking to join
…..I guess it’s an influence grab.