Search Results for: climate change

Why Was Farage Bumped From Question Time?

Did the BBC withdraw Nigel Farage’s invitation to appear on last week’s Question Time in Middlesbrough over fears about what he might say regarding the closure of the Corus steel plant on Teesside? Tata and Pachauri do like to threaten their critics with lawyers (remember the BBC’s spineless response to complaints by the Muslim Council of Britain following Charles Moore’s QT comments). Or does the BBC not need a specific reason to piss UKIP around?

(Hat tips to PacificRising in the comments and Not A Sheep)

Update. More on this from Tory Aardvark and EURSOC (via George R. in the comments)

HORROR HARRABIN

Yesterday Richard North, of the blog EU Referendum, appeared on the Gaby Logan show on Radio 5 to discuss the setting up of the UEA panel to investigate Climategate. That’s pretty amazing in its own right, although one swallow does not make a summer. Richard, as would be expected, was pretty formidable, but what was fascinating about the exchanges was the contribution of Roger Harrabin. I’m including the relevant section in full because it has to be seen to be believed. Note especially his pathetic attempts at obfuscation and his rapid descent into claims of insults. What insults?

Mr Harrabin opened his contribution by stating that the CRU emails had been “stolen”. Richard rightly took exception to this, and pointed out that the latest evidence suggested an internal leak:

. . . we’ve had wonderful theories about intelligence agencies and hackers and this and that and the other – this is prejudicing the inquiry, against the reality is that it is probably an internal job and to talk about stolen emails and hackers and all the rest is, I think, distorting the debate and not helping the listener and the general public understand what has been going on.

Gaby Logan: Roger, do you take that.

Roger Harrabin: I would like to know what the better term would be? They’ve been referred to consistently as stolen emails, I know there are other theories about, that there was an inside job. The fact is that they were private emails not for publication, and the people who had them published on the internet considered them to have been stolen, they’d been referred to as being stolen. I’m not sure what else we would call them . . . This is another one of these things where you probably need a sentence rather than a word . . .

RN: Roger, sorry . . .

RH: I think this is not a helpful . . . honestly, this is not a helpful debate at the moment to talk about whether they’ve been stolen or not. A review has been set up . . . .

RN: (interjects) Well, then don’t refer to it as being stolen.

RH: Can we . . . I think we should be thinking today, and this is how this gets bogged down in arguments, please, please, it would be a change as well if we could get into a debate without having insults as well, that would be a nice change.

RN: Well, all the . . .

GL: Sorry, sorry, could we just let Roger . . .

RN: Well all the point I’m making, Roger, is stop prejudicing the debate. You are making an assumption in your terminology.

I simply love that Roger seems to think that because the emails have been called “stolen”(by him, mainly!)that this is the best way to describe them. And the point of balanced journalism is, Mr Harrabin?

Hadley CRU Hacked

(Update – the Examiner article linked to below stated that this was the UEA Hadley Climate Research Centre. Hadley is not in the title. The leaked documents are from the UEA’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). Hadley is a separate Met Office organisation. Thanks to a very agitated Pete Pisspoor in the comments for pointing that out.
Further update – CRU has provided a lot of the “climate simulations data” for Hadley’s LINK project. It has also ” developed datasets in conjunction with Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office”. Search HadCRU and HadCRUT on Google.)

And now, back to our original programming…

This could get very interesting:

The University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

CRU has confirmed that it has been hacked and it has cancelled all existing passwords. If you see or hear any mention of this on the BBC please point it out in the comments so we can monitor how this story is spun, both by CRU and the BBC.

Update 13.45. Andrew Bolt has been picking through the emails and documents and, if they are all genuine, the information in them is simply astonishing.

There’s a document by CRU’s Professor Phil Jones which shows that he was so concerned by Freedom Of Information requests for raw data that he was contemplating ways to remove key information and reconstruct the data to make it fit the preferred conclusions.
There’s an email from American climate scientist Tom Wigley advising Professor Jones how to manipulate some data to emphasise warming trends.
There’s an email from Jones telling his colleagues to delete incriminatory emails.
There’s another from Jones in which he tells a colleague that he’s used the same “trick” as Michael Mann (Mr Hockey Stick) “to hide the decline”, and in yet another he calls the reported death of a climate sceptic “cheering news”.
There’s an email from Mann himself promising senior CRU staff that they can use the RealClimate website to post articles and he will ensure the censorship of any comments from sceptics challenging what they’ve written.
There’s an email from senior IPCC scientist Kevin Trenberth in which he asks, “Where the heck is global warming?…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
There’s an email in which CRU staff promise to blackball scientists from the IPCC report whose work doesn’t conform to their alarmist predictions: “keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”

If the BBC’s environment correspondents are too upset to touch the story, perhaps the BBC’s Open Secrets blogger Martin Rosenbaum will do something about it. Deleting data and emails demanded by FOI requests is, after all, illegal.

Update 17.00. The BBC has reported it here. Hat tip to 1327 in the comments who points out, as does Mr Eugenides, that the potentially explosive contents of the emails and documents are not mentioned.

Update 17.30. The Guardian’s report does mention the email contents. There’s also a quote from a very angry sounding Michael Mann: “I’m hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.”

Update 17.40. Our old friend Jo Abbess responds: “I’ve read a number of them, and there’s nothing untoward in anything. It’s all a hoax to make you think that the Science is unravelling or that the Scientists are misbehaving (aka “lying”).” She adds: “I await put-downs from the Climate Science community after the weekend.” I’m not sure they’ll wait that long to start the “put-downs”, Jo.

Update 18.30. (With a reminder of the health warning until it’s all proved to be kosher) One of the leaked emails from Michael Mann addressing the recent “What happened to global warming? article by the BBC’s Paul Hudson which caused such outrage among the econuts (emphasis added) :

From: Michael Mann
To: Stephen H Schneider
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:00:44 -0400
Cc: Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , trenbert , Michael Oppenheimer

extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

mike

Looks like Richard Black is considered a reliable sort by this bunch. I wonder if they’re in contact with him now, coordinating their response. (Hat tip to a guest in the comments.)

Update 19.00. The email from the IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth (mentioned above @13.45 update – follow link to Andrew Bolt to view) in which he says, “where the heck is global warming?… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant” comes from the same email exchange relating to Paul Hudson’s article. Trenberth seems to be backing Hudson.

Update 19.30. Reminder: “Climate ‘hockey stick’ is revived” by Richard Black.

Update 20.00. Richard Black has a round-up of Copenhagen-related news on his blog, time stamped 18.16 UK time today. No mention of the CRU documents. (Last update this evening from me.)

APOCALYPSE NOT QUITE NOW

Interesting article here in the Guardian of all places suggesting that recent “apocalyptic predictions” about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. (I’m not sure anyone says global warming does not exist, some of us query the factors driving it!) The reason I bring this up is that I just watched part of the new David Attenborough series “Nature’s Great Events” on BBC1 and was struck by his constant evangelising on behalf of AGW. Anyone else see it? Great imagery but lots of scaremongery!

Not a fan

The BBC’s Climate Wars receives a less than glowing review from James Delingpole in the Spectator:

A Church of England official has issued an apology to the descendants of Charles Darwin for the Church’s ‘anti-evolutionary’ fervour towards his Origin of the Species.

I wonder if in about 150 years’ time the BBC — presuming it still exists which I won’t let it do, I promise, once I’ve become your emperor — will make similar amends for having been wrong about absolutely everything from Israel, Europe, Islamism and multiculturalism to women, children, animals and, above all, global warming.

‘God, what a bunch of complete and utter ****ers we all were,’ their apology could say as it floats in shimmery holographic form over icy London streets dominated by minarets, wind turbines and huge packs of semi-domesticated polar bears. ‘We could have contributed something useful or interesting to the climate-change debate. Instead we gave you Earth: The Climate Wars (BBC 2, Sunday).

It’s worth reading the rest. Is this the worst review the programme received or are there other nominations?

Aiming left

Paul Mason has replied to a comment on his blog criticising it for being, well, a bit left wing. “Where the hell do the BBC actually find people as left wing as you?” asks the reader. Mason’s response:

If you are American you may not be used to this but the UK consensus is “liberal” and I am happy to be slap in the middle of it. On science, on the desirability of avoiding mass unemployment, on the world being older than 3,000 years.

To start with, I’m not sure a Trot who – as an adult – is still fond of aping Che is really even in the middle of the left-wing. Surely he’s closer to the Galloway fringe? But it’s instructive that’s where he’s aiming, so let’s have a look at that left-wing consensus in the UK:

All positions, I’m sure, we can see are well reflected in the Beeb’s coverage.

Hat-tip to Libertarian in the comments

UPDATE: Tories are now on 52%; Labour on 24%. Looking forward to the BBC reports reflecting this new consensus.

Notable balance corrected

Newsbusters has done a great job of bringing this story to light– how an activist got the ear of a BBC journalist, Roger Harrabin, and bent an environmental story that began with a definite note of climate reality and ended up toeing the same old same old BBC AGW line.

Classic activist argumentation was apparently used, such as “It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics. Their voice is heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth.”

The email dialogue apparently came to light because environmentalist Jo Abbess fell to blabbing about it online to her pals. Thanks to Jennifer Marohasy and Newsbusters the BBC’s willingness to appease the environmental activists is exposed.

GREENER THAN GREEN.

There appears to be two sides to the environmentalist agenda, the green and and the really green. The BBC likes to give us both. Hence this report which discusses the EU’s desire to cut C02 emissions by 30% by 2020. Europe’s environment chief Stavros Dimas claims that ” big polluters” like Porsche or Rolls-Royce would have to radically change the way they make their cars or have them banned from sale. But by way of balance, the BBC reports that Green groups gave “a shudder” last week when they heard Europe’s big players – especially Germany – were looking for a climate deal that would protect some of the most polluting industries and allow the continued manufacture of gas-guzzling luxury cars.

What about those of us who give “a shudder” when we read this planned onslaught on our industries and manufacturers by third rate Euroweenie politicians who are exploiting genuine concerns on the environment for the things they like to do best – tax and ban? Shouldn’t the BBC understand that there are many who do NOT buy into this environmental fetish and start to seek OUR opinions in order to balance the debate rather than start and finish with the eco-wackos?

Roundup

First off, please note I’m off on my hols. So don’t write to me for the next two weeks. I hope my colleagues will keep posting; but if they, too, are busy on other aspects of their lives I expect the world will carry on somehow.

  • Matt comments:

    All of the way through the US Lobbyist scandal BBC Online have been presenting the matter as if it were only Republicans who had been in receipt of questionable largesse and laregly ignored the, admittedly lesser numbers, of Democrats also tainted. Their choice of headlines for these stories has been particularly biased and misleading.

    Now today they are reporting a story regarding the changing of Wikipedia entries which solely implicates Democrats on Capitol Hill without even vaguely making it clear that it was only the Democrats who have been doing this indeed the only Republican mentioned has had his entry changed in a perjorative manner by Democrats. This is a perfect example of the constant subtle anti conservative bias that dominates BBC Online: “Congress ‘made Wikipedia changes'”

  • Context, context, context says the Pedant-General regarding the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Jyllands-Posten originally wanted to make a point about a climate of fear. BBC reporting is not doing its job when it leaves this context out.
  • Mike Jericho compares the headlines on the beating of two Chinese activists, one an activist against corruption, the other against abortion.
  • Disillusioned German writes: “Not sure if you were aware of that but the BBC are actually running banner ads for their News Website. I’ve taken the attached Flash Banner from the International Herald Tribune Europe website. I’ve also come across it on the Yahoo News Germany website.” He included a download, but I’m too ignorant to know how to post it. Personally, I’m not particularly bothered by this advertising, but in the old days the BBC used to boast of being above crude commercialism.
  • Every now and then we like to include links to websites taking a different view to our own about BBC bias. I was asked, very politely, to link to this one. I must state frankly to the author that I would not usually link to a website with these views:

    How fair has the media been really to the Palestinian cause? I mean, you had a man by the name of Bob Elkins who was a Zionist, in the very least a strong Zionist sympathizer, and he was hired by the BBC to report during the crucial 67 and October wars, as well as just the everyday situation, and he was very very misleading
    The BBC is labeled as one of the more just TV stations, but always at some point they have had and they do have, Zionists controlling the programmes and the different points of views

    – But during the present controversy, it seemed appropriate, somehow, to make an exception. BTW, looking at the following and previous few posts on that blog I can’t quite figure out where it’s coming from. They do not all seem of a piece with the above.

  • Susan comments on this BBC story:

    “Shooting kills priest in Turkey

    Yes, that’s right – a “shooting” killed the priest, according to al-Beeb. Said shooting just got up and done that poor man in all by its little self.

So goodbye for the next two weeks. One thing I won’t miss is the obligation to delete mindlessly anti-Islamic comments. I have typed approximately these words many times: this site tolerates debate about religion, including the religion of Islam. Tolerates, but does not encourage. We would prefer you discussed, critically or favourably, the British Broadcasting Corporation, since that it what this site is about. For now we choose not to operate a strict policy of restricting the subject to the BBC, a decision that may change. Sober criticism or defence of any religion or atheism is acceptable. Inflammatory comments are not.

Bad Dairy Products and Fault Electrics

Bad Dairy Products and Faulty Electrics. Or Parmalat and Enron- not that there’s anything wrong with the actual substances they both deal/dealt in, especially Parmalat, whose dairy products are allegedly yum-yummy. No, the question I have is whether the Beeb really enjoys talking more about the Enron scandal than the Parmalat one. You see, 404 articles versus 48 might be said to tell a story. That story might be that one scandal’s been around longer than the other, or that one scandal is much bigger than the other- and that latter point one of the BBC’s own articles makes:

‘Parallels with Enron should not be taken too far…Enron was notionally 11 times larger than the Italian firm’.

Fair enough. Then why does another article say that


‘It is becoming clear that a vast fraud, probably the biggest in corporate history, has been perpetrated at Parmalat’

Why, too, are the figures given by the BBC for the companies’ respective debts 14.3bn Euros and $15bn? In today’s currency climate that would make Parmalat’s debts significantly bigger than Enron’s.


Not only these anomalies worry me. There’s also some hyped up anti-capitalist language, and contradiction as well. In one article we find in quick succession ‘disgraced.. giant Enron … byword… corporate misgovernance.. greed’ . In another article (the first one highlighted) we hear that

‘Enron was so shocking because it epitomised everything that American capitalism had been taught to admire- glamour, nerve, rapid growth and revolutionary thinking. It’s failure was- perhaps rightly- seen as a failure of corporate America, and so shook the very foundations’


Yet, in the same article, we are are introduced to the problems of ‘Parmalat, Italy’s iconic food and dairy company’. What’s the difference here between an ‘epitome’ and an ‘icon’- both indicate a brand that is looked up to? So even on that front, Parmalat would appear to have claims to rival Enron- but the rhetorical gulf completely undermines that reasonable conclusion. That’s not to mention the question of employees, and potential unemployment, where again Parmalat (36,000 vs 21, 000) may be seen to outstrip Enron (a fact not surprising when you consider their businesses). The judgement that Enron ‘perhaps rightly’ symbolised the failure of ‘American capitalism’ should at least be extended to ‘European social capitalism’ through the Parmalat scandal in Europe, or it should be retracted. The coverage on the BBC’s part appears to be quite deliberately unequal. The really sad thing is they can’t even maintain a consistent line on the matter in their own articles: hence their coverage draws attention to itself with the whiff of hypocrisy and self-contradiction. Friday Update: I’ve altered the above post- mostly about synchronising quotes with links, but also some changes of tone. Sorry for any confusion.