Biased BBC’s Alan reveals a bit of a killer blow for Richard Black here…..

Below is an article from ‘Nature’ science magazine that proves that  the pro CO2 abolition groups are advancing a leftwing ideology and not science….it is cultural and political…

and what’s even better is that…..

Richard Black is caught out with his long held beliefs demolished, discredited and shot so full of holes that it wouldn’t hold a large lump of melting iceberg never mind water…..

RB: I’m not surprised at the level of UK scepticism as the main impacts of CC are decades away and in other places. The problem is poor science awareness. We need to improve science education so people properly understand climate science.

DA: A short-term disaster is needed to guarantee coverage as people aren’t good at processing information about there being no ice at the poles in 30 years. Or get David Attenborough as the front man because everyone trusts him.
RB: I agree that a short term disaster would be effective in persuading people.

(These are notes taken from a discussion meeting at Oxford University on 26th February 2010
Question and answer format featuring environmental correspondents Richard Black (BBC), Fiona Harvey (FT), David Adam (Guardian) and Ben Jackson (Sun) and chaired by Fiona Fox, director of the Science Media Centre.)

DA: I used to think sceptics were bad and mad but now the bad people (lobbyists for fossil fuel industries) had gone, leaving only the mad.

Black may, will have to reconsider his unfounded views after reading this report from the pro climate change ‘Nature’ magazine.

I have plucked out the most relevant and easily digested bits that still gives the full narrative. It is worthwhile reading the whole thing, though written with scientific terms it is perfectly understandable….I did need a dictionary to look up ‘Heuristic’!

My only disagreement is with its categorization of ‘rightwingers’ as people who are only self interested without the welfare of the community as a whole being their concern. Closing down industry and commerce means no money… jobs, no welfare, no schools, no housing, no food, no NHS…no nothing. I would say keeping the lights on and the machine ticking over was a community concern of great importance.

Also Sceptics may actually disagree with the ‘science’ on an evidence based principle….no scientist has yet proved ‘warming’ is caused by a rise in CO2 levels…the evidence so far is that CO2 levels rise only after the temperature rises….as admitted by UEA’s Phil Jones.

What does ‘Nature’ say:

Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled.
We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it.

Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.

[The normal explanation for scepticism is…..]
As members of the public do not know what scientists know, or think the way scientists think, they predictably fail to take climate change as seriously as scientists believe they should.
The alternative explanation can be referred to as the cultural cognition thesis (CCT). CCT posits that individuals, as a result of a complex of psychological mechanisms, tend to form perceptions of societal risks that cohere with values characteristic of groups with which they identify
People who subscribe to a hierarchical, individualistic world-view—one that ties authority to conspicuous social rankings and eschews collective interference with the decisions of individuals possessing such authority—tend to be sceptical of environmental risks. Such people intuitively perceive that widespread acceptance of such risks would license restrictions on commerce and industry, forms of behaviour that hierarchical individualists value. In contrast, people who hold an egalitarian, communitarian world-view—one favouring less regimented forms of social organization and greater collective attention to individual needs—tend to be morally suspicious of commerce and industry, to which they attribute social inequity. They therefore find it congenial to believe those forms of behaviour are dangerous and worthy of restriction.
These findings were consistent, too, with previous ones showing that climate change has become highly politicized.

As the contribution that culture makes to disagreement grows as science literacy and numeracy increase, it is not plausible to view cultural cognition as a heuristic substitute for the knowledge or capacities that SCT views the public as lacking.
Our findings could be viewed as evidence of how remarkably well-equipped ordinary individuals are to discern which stances towards scientific information secure their personal interests.
For the ordinary individual, the most consequential effect of his beliefs about climate change is likely to be on his relations with his peers.
Given how much the ordinary individual depends on peers for support—material and emotional—and how little impact his beliefs have on the physical environment, he would probably be best off if he formed risk perceptions that minimized any danger of estrangement from his community.’

The below though is the possibly sinister and scary conclusion that ‘Nature’ comes to…..never mind trying to educate the public use friendly , trusted, respected members of the ‘community’ to advance the propaganda…..remember this:
‘Get David Attenborough as the front man because everyone trusts him.’

‘One aim of science communication, we submit, should be to dispel this tragedy of the risk-perception commons. A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that. As worthwhile as it would be, simply improving the clarity of scientific information will not dispel public conflict so long as the climate-change debate continues to feature cultural meanings that divide citizens of opposing world-views.
It does not follow, however, that nothing can be done to promote constructive and informed public deliberations. As citizens understandably tend to conform their beliefs about societal risk to beliefs that predominate among their peers, communicators should endeavor to create a deliberative climate in which accepting the best available science does not threaten any group’s values. Effective strategies include use of culturally diverse communicators, whose affinity with different communities enhances their credibility, and information-framing techniques that invest policy solutions with resonances congenial to diverse groups. Perfecting such techniques through a new science of science communication is a public good of singular importance.’

In other words PR, spin, propaganda, call it what you will but they are advocating altering people’s beliefs by manipulation and ‘faith’ in the person or mechanism used to deliver the message alone…never mind the Truth.”


I see that Biased BBC favourite, Richard Black, has been leading the BBC charge against Fracking. There was an item on Today about it this morning and it seems to me that the BBC seems more like an echo chamber for Friends of the Earth, that radical hard left organisation. Mind you it’s a tough time for Richard. Here he is dealing with the fact that some glaciers are confounding the “global warming meme” and putting on mass.


Richard Black is back and our intrepid B-BBCcorrespondent Alan picks up on Black’s latest desperation…

“Richard Black reports on a reporter reporting on Climate Change…though he is a foreign affairs reporter in the main not an environmental one and definitely not a scientist….Nothing like using another reporter’s ‘views’ as back up for your own when you can’t get the science to add up…..but Black clearly likes the idea that climate change was the driving force behind the Arab Spring.

@BBCRBlack via Twitter
Thomas Friedman joins dots between the Arab Spring, water shortages and climate change
‘Climate change is the unseen player in the Arab Spring.

“Isn’t it interesting that the Arab awakening began in Tunisia with a fruit vendor who was harassed by police for not having a permit to sell food – just at the moment when world food prices hit record highs?’

We should listen to Friedman…everyone else does and modifies their policies accordingly…..says a friend of Friedman’s on Wikipedia…..

‘In February 2002, Friedman met Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and personally encouraged him to make his comprehensive attempt to end the Arab-Israeli conflict by normalizing Arab relations with Israel in exchange for the return of refugees alongside an end to the Israel territorial occupations. Abdullah proposed the Arab Peace Initiative at the Beirut Summit that March, which Friedman has strongly supported since.

In May 2011, it was reported in The New York Times that President Obama”has sounded out” Friedman concerning Middle East issues.

Richard Black Longs For The UN To Override Nations’ Sovereignty For His Cause

Since Robin Horbury hasn’t gotten around to posting about this, I’ll bring it up. Richard Black recently expressed his dismay that an individual country can block UN resolutions regarding climate change. Specifically, he’s worried about yet another failed Warmist Synod outcome from the upcoming Rio Summit in June.Of course, being a cleverly-trained writer, he presents this as a question and not an outright statement.

In a nutshell: does the way humanity governs itself need a series of tweaks or a complete overhaul, in order to meet the broadest ambitions of improving the lot of the planet’s poorest, safeguarding nature and making the global economy more sustainable?

And people wonder why some of us say that Warmists have totalitarian tendencies. All your national sovereignty are belong to us.

To support this idea, Black brings up a recent study by the Earth System Governance Project. Cute name, no? A One-World Government by any other name….

Now, I’m a fan of science fiction, especially Star Trek, and am not automatically opposed to the idea, in the abstract, of a single united government for a planet. I grew up with my imagination filled by the likes of the United Federation of Planets. Nearly every single plant our heroes visited each week was ruled by a single government, and those which didn’t had conflict which needed to be solved by the benevolent guiding hand. Even planets at war with each other had single governments which simply needed to be brought together. It would be lovely if it were reality. But what these people want isn’t an abstract idea at all. And our world is nothing like these harmonious fantasies.

Rather, the Earth System Government Project, Black informs us, has spent a decade pondering whether or not we need a single government entity for the entire planet. He mentions how long they’ve been at it because that’s supposed to tell us they’re really serious about it, and whatever result they’ve come to can have resulted only from very long and serious study. So he sets it up as an appeal to authority straight away, to head off any doubts before they happen.

Before I get to the study, though, let’s take a moment to see if there’s any coincidence that he just happens to be talking about this issue now. But of course there is. Next week, he’ll be moderating a panel – “Innovative solutions for a planet under pressure” – at the “Planet Under Pressure” conference in London. Remember the word “innovative” for later. I do hope he’s not getting paid to promote this political agenda. Have a look at the speaker/panelist list, and notice a couple of names from the ESGP’s steering committee, as well as one of their lead faculty members. It’s a small world in this field, I know.

To show how serious they are, they’ve come up with a seven-point plan. Five of them are the usual stuff, using typical language we’ve come to expect, albeit slightly gilded for effect: reform the UN’s environmental agencies (I can think of other agencies they should do first), “deploy innovative technologies”,  “support developing countries to ensure fairness” (that’s wealth redistribution when it’s at home), “reflect sustainability concerns” and so on. But Nos. 5 and 6 should give us all pause:

5. introduce qualified majority voting when making international decisions on environment and sustainability

6. strengthen the voices of citizens as opposed to bureaucrats in global decision-making

And there you have it. Let the majority override national sovereignty on desired issues, and give activists more power to control the agenda. Black then lays it out for us.

Some of these are already being addressed in the Rio process, especially the first two; although their CSD proposal contains the innovative element of adjusting the weight given to each country’s representation so that the G20 grouping accounts for 50% of the votes.

Note the positive qualifier, “innovative”. Could this be one of the “innovate solutions” discussed in that panel he’ll be moderating next week? According to the website of one of the organizations behind the whole event, Earth System Science Partnership, the conference “will provide scientific leadership towards the 2012 UN conference on Sustainable Development – Rio +20.” The very conference Black talks about here. So it’s all very much on his mind these days.

This might appear undemocratic; but actually it would ensure the voting reflects the size of countries’ populations more accurately than it does now, though also skewing things towards the rich.

It might appear undemocratic, but it seriously appears to do away with national sovereignty. This seems not to trouble Black at all.

The most radical idea in procedural terms is introducing majority voting in UN fora to prevent a few recalcitrant nations from blocking the will of the vast majority.

There have been many times in the past when just one or two countries held up progress in UN processes such as the climate change convention – and the same issue is now being raised within the EU, where last week Poland on its own managed to block the setting of tougher carbon emission targets.

You don’t want other countries to force you to alter your own domestic policies? Screw you. 

On the other hand, some countries’ protests clearly matter more than others.

Guess who the big bad guy is in this story:

Whereas the 2007 UN climate summit in Bali hinged on whether the US would block the will of every other country on the planet – it eventually chose not to – the objections of Bolivia at the equivalent meeting in 2010 were basically ignored by everyone else, who decided in that case that a consensus could leave one nation out.

The horrible US – when Bush was President, naturally – ruined it for everyone back in 2007, while later on poor Bolivia had their own national sovereignty trampled upon in the name of consensus. Yet Black sees the former as a bad thing, and the latter as a good precedent.

As so often in environmental and sustainability circles, the plan contains no shortage of ideas on what should be done, and why, and by when.

The politics of how to make it all happen are a different matter.

In this case, how to get economic bodies to put Rio+20 notions at the centre of their decision-making, how to persuade governments to give up their right of veto, how to project the concerns of citizens through the blockage of bureaucracy – these aren’t in the prescription.

Black is writing this whole thing from the perspective that this is a desirable goal. His personal bias on the so-called climate change issue leads him to view national sovereignty as an obstacle which needs to be overcome. Citizens (read: activists) must be able to control the agenda.

(By the way, can anyone else think of certain other UN resolution votes which might be affected by this process? )

Here’s a thought: why not let them go out and get elected like everyone else, Richard? Or is that not the kind of democracy you’re looking for? Just like the BBC’s darling Occupiers, he defines “democracy” as shouting loud enough to get his way. This is a totalitarian agenda, being pushed by a highly-paid, high-profile, BBC journalist. At your expense.


Biased BBC contributor Alan writes;

“Richard ‘Blackout’ Black strikes again…or rather doesn’t…..the Sunday Express reveals that environmental campaigners are being hired by energy companies to lobby on their behalf and to recruit a campaign network in places they want to build wind farms:

 ‘AN “ARMY of eco-warriors” is being hired by wind farm lobbyists to fight for onshore farms in one of the most beautiful parts of Britain, writes Kirsty Buchanan. While thousands of residents in Mid Wales have vowed to fight plans that would see up to 600 turbines carpeting the countryside, Action for Renewables, lobby arm of trade association Renewables UK, is seeking campaigners to champion its wind farms. The job description includes building a “network of local campaigning groups across the region” and identifying “campaign leaders in local areas close to existing and proposed renewables sites”. The group, which was unavailable for comment yesterday, is part-funded by Centrica, parent group of British Gas.’

Black seems unconcerned about the enormous subsidies to these ‘green energy’ companies but is disturbed about oil companies as he links to this story:


As is often the case with the BBC, it’s remarkable the news they choose not to report. Biased BBC contributor Alan notes;

“With many political and corporate interests vested in green technology and the continuance of the war against CO2 ‘polluters’ it seems they have been caught with their hands in the till.

The Sunday Times reports that KPMG, one of the world’s largest accountancy firms, completed a report that concluded windfarms and solar power were unnecessary and expensive means to meeting government CO2 emission targets….huge savings and strategic benefits would flow from nuclear and gas fired power stations. To quote the Times, the report would have ‘explosive consequences for the government’s energy policy’ and serious political damage.

KPMG were bombarded with emails and phone calls from companies and environmental groups demanding the report be ‘pulled’. The Report was duly ‘buried’. KPMG is one of the government’s main advisors on energy policy as well as making millions advising companies on renewable energy projects and helped shape the very policy its report called into question.

I wonder when the clamour will start from all those environmentalists who claim that ‘big oil’ was funding many of the sceptics… is a company which is benefiting from advising the government and then having the government fund projects that in turn KPMG benefits from.

Kind of smacks of Goldman Sachs betting on both sides before the financial crash.

I eagerly await Richard Black first of all actually drawing attention to the story and then seeing what line he takes firstly in defending KPMG and then defending wind and solar power….when the report says that nuclear and gas fired power stations make more sense.”

Sunday Times (paywall) ‘Blown Away’ by Danny Fortson:


One of the great things about Biased BBC is the tremendous expertise we have on the topic of AGW – with Robin Horbury in particular dissecting much of the nonsense spouted by the BBC on this issue. I was amused by this latest headline from our dear friend, Richard Black. 
Say what? 

The progressive shrinking of Arctic sea ice is bringing colder, snowier winters to the UK and other areas of Europe, North America and China, a study shows.As global temperatures have risen, the area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice in summer and autumn has been falling. Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a US/China-based team show this affects the jet stream and brings cold, snowy weather.

And for those who can’t be bothered wading through the dross, there’s a nice picture of a Greek city swathed in snow.  Oh, and there’s a picture of a Walrus looking sad. Do you think Richard wants us to really really believe in AGW perchance? Right, let’s take this drivel from Black apart…


It’s not a good week if Richard Black does not gain the interest of our commentariat and so it is that B-BBC contributor Alan observes;

“Richard Black hassurfaced again having gone to ground to give himself thinking time in order towrack his brains to find a line of defence for the person who stole documentsfrom Heartland Institute.
(Should you want some real world science facts listen to this….21 minutes and39 seconds that speaks more common sense than Black has done in his entirecarrer…

Forced into writing something by the amount of criticism his non-reportinggenerated:

‘I don’t normally do requests, as they say – but I’ve a lot of messages viaemails, blog comments and Twitter asking for a follow-up post on the HeartlandInstitute, and am happy to oblige.’ (as ‘Watts up with That’ reports….UPDATE28: 11:40AM James Evans in commentsreports that “the BBC has finally weighed in, and it’s lame”. It only tookRichard Black 36 hours to be convinced by an onslaught of emails. Whatta guy!The article makeup leaves no question now that Black is biased beyond allhope.’)

This is the best he could do:

‘Firstly, what’s wrong with the Heartland Institute preparing curriculummaterial for use in schools, you’ve asked. “Green groups do it all thetime,” is the allegation.

As a parent and a citizen, if teachers use non-standard curriculum material,the main thing I would be worried about is accuracy.’ He had no such qualms about the fraudulently inaccurate ‘Inconvenient Truths’video peddled by Al Gore. An Al Gore who is making millions from the climatechange ‘business’.Presumably lying fora good cause, or one you have persuaded yourself is a good cause is acceptableto Black.

And of course with Black the problem may or may not be accuracy, his worst failureis to not print the facts if they are ‘inconvenient’….note well that in thislatest effort worthy of Pravda he has avoided completely mentioning that themain document was faked….possibly because he has a good idea who the fakeris….suspicions are all pointing in one direction.

I wonder what he makes of the below where artists and performers are beingorganised to collaborate with ‘on message’ scientists to manufacture thepublic’s consent to their lifestyles being destroyed along with their businessesand futures, energy prices ramped up to extortionate levels on order to pay forpolicies based on at best mistaken science at worst deliberate attempts to hidethe truth:

‘TippingPoint, in partnership with NIReS, will be holding a major national gatheringof those concerned with the interface between the arts and culture on one hand,and environmental issues, particularly climate change, on the other. Our aim is to continue and strengthen the vital process of giving the urgentchallenges of climate change and sustainability a cultural and artisticvoice…..collaborations with scientists, artists can play a vital role inexploring and pointing the way towards the cultural, societal and behaviouralshifts needed in a world subject to a rapidly changing climate.’

Should you be in any doubt that we are being deliberately mislead read this:
Which describes the political, not scientific reasons behind biofuels beingadopted as a solution to climate change.

 Another one that Black ignores.

As I said at the start Black has gone on the offensive to defend his previousstance on Heartland….claiming the man who fraudulently obtained the documentsis the real victim of the affair…..

‘@BBCRBlack via Twitter
Fallout from Heartland may harm Peter Gleick and others, reports @suzyji@guardianeco

A Guardian story of course.

However he does not link to the likes of this:
Heartland Memo Looking Faker by the Minute
Business Feb 17 2012, 12:14 PM ET 1080

Here are his full thoughts on the matter…they don’t need much comment as theyare clearly a man clutching at straws to defend the indefensible:

‘As the old saying goes, “news is something that someone somewhere doesn’twant you to know”
and here was information about a significant player in climate politics that itcertainly didn’t want you to have.

I am very wary of drawing parallels between the so-called”ClimateGate” issue of 2009 and the so-called “DenierGate”issue of the Heartland Institute, because they are very different.
But one thing they do have in common is that each is really a combination oftwo stories: who lifted the documents, and what the documents tell us.

With the Heartland case, we knew last week that someone had obtained thedocuments by the back door – “stolen”, to use the institute’s word.
Now, we know who; and that’s as far as it goes.

Firstly, what’s wrong with the Heartland Institute preparing curriculummaterial for use in schools, you’ve asked. “Green groups do it all thetime,” is the allegation.

As a parent and a citizen, if teachers use non-standard curriculum material,the main thing I would be worried about is accuracy.

The proposed modules would, for example, state that “whether humans arechanging the climate is a major scientific controversy” and that”natural emissions [of CO2] are 20 times higher than humanemissions”. The first is just wrong. It may be a public debate; but within science, thequestion is how much, not whether. In the second case, natural absorption is not mentioned and it’s the differencebetween the two – net emissions – that is the crucial fact.

Nevertheless, the rationale behind the argument is clear. Heartlandacknowledges it ramps its climate work up and down depending on how much moneyit receives.’


It’s not often a BBC correspondent invites comparison to figures from Greek antiquity but B-BBC contributor Alan notes;

“There will come atime when we have an answer to the climate change question. When that timecomes somebody may well sit down and write the history of this period intime…the history of the media coverage in particular. If they did what might they find?

They would find a world respected media organisation with a duty to providenews regardless of vested interests which has had its name and reputationdragged into the gutter by a cluster of senior journalists and presenters whofailed to uphold the high standards of impartiality and truthfulness that theBBC demanded of them. Climate change alone would be enough to tarnish the BBC’s reputation but addonto that its coverage of Europe, immigration, the Labour Party, Islam,terrorism and the Middle East and there is hardly an area of world events thatthe BBC has not mislead the British and world audience on.

It is unfortunate that no one can trust the BBC to give them the absolutetruth….any report from the BBC now has to be double checked and cross referenced…preferablywith the original source material or with other news organisations or expertcommentators. A recent example of this comes appropriately enough from their environmentcorrespondent Richard Black.

Here he tweets an attack on Bush….
@BBCRBlack via Twitter
Canada accused of ‘muzzling scientists’ – another echo of US under George W Bush?

Bush was fully prepared to believe in man made climate change…he just wanteddefinitive proof…which we still don’t have. Read the Bush clean air speechbelow from 2002.

Black then goes onto attack the ‘new’ attempt to reduce emissions of othergases as short term …..
‘The US is leading a new six-nation initiative aimed at curbing climate changeby tackling short-lived warming agents including methane, black carbon andhydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
(but)…according to the science, tackling short-lived climate pollutantsdoesn’t prevent global warming – it just delays it….. emphasising short-termwarmers in the absence of meaningful action on CO2, to some observers, smacksof short-term politics and an unwillingness to get to grips with the mainissue.’

 The ‘main issue’?

Here he is clearly still pushing hard for CO2 reduction policies as moreeffective…despite methane being a more powerful greenhouse gas….butnote….although global warming is such an urgent priority Black tells us thatCO2 reduction will only be effective from 2060….’tackling CO2 and not doinganything about the short-lived substances sees more warming in the next fewdecades – but beyond about 2060, it’s more effective than tackling theshort-lived agents.’

Logical incoherence?

Black’s logic fails spectacularly….because although methane may disappearfrom the atmosphere relatively quickly…it only disappears if you stop puttingmore up there….you don’t cut the grass once every summer….you have to keepcutting….keep putting methane into the air and its effects continue….it isdifferent methane but with the same effect.Guess you shouldn’t ask that old riddle of Black…is a river the same river aswater flows through it? 

According to both Plato and Aristotle, Heraclitus held extreme views that ledto logical incoherence…..“Heraclitus, I believe, says that all things go andnothing stays, and comparing existents to the flow of a river, he says youcould not step twice into the same river”

Black, the new Heraclitus? ….’from the riddling nature of his philosophy andhis contempt for humankind in general, he was called “The Obscure”and the “Weeping Philosopher”.’

Compare that to this from Geoffrey Lean in the Telegraph who is a convinced climatechange advocate himself:

Then you may want to look at what George W. Bush actually said and did ratherthan the cheap jibes from Black and Co.

In 2004 Bush started the Methane reduction plan….and it carries on today….
‘Writer Rod Dreher laments that the media has not given Bush credit for pushingthe 2004 Methane to Markets initiative through Congress. Dreher stated thatmethane is “twenty-three times more potent a contributor to global warmingthan the carbon dioxide emissions the Kyoto treaty aimed at cutting”. Theinitiative plans to reduce global methane emissions, the second largestcontributor to atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, in order toenhance economic growth, promote energy security, improve the environment, andreduce greenhouse gases. Other expected benefits include improving mine safety,reducing waste, and improving local air quality.

This is the up to date website for this programme:
Then look at this from 2002: