JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Richard Black — the fastest apologist for misbehaving scientists

Black thinks the BBC reported on ClimateGate, instead they rushed to report a “hacking” that may not even have been a hack…

Richard Black thinks the BBC was the first to “report” Climategate in the mainstream press.

@BBCRBlackvia TwitterTired old meme that BBC was slow to report “ClimateGate” is circulating again – for record we were 1st main news org http://t.co/c4sU6puy

But the BBC didn’t report ClimateGate in that story at all. What they reported was a hypothetical hacking of a university in the UK, one which (two years later) still remains a claim that has no evidence in support of. Was it was illegally hacked or legally leaked? Don’t tune in to the BBC for the answer. They don’t even ask the question.

If the BBC had reported on Climategate, we could tell, because they would have reported what the emails actually said, not just the opinions that said “they don’t matter”.

Let’s compare Black’s reporting of Climategate and FakeGate

On ClimateGate, Black waited until after he had a spokesman from the CRU to comment, and having confirmed the emails were from the CRU, Black quoted exactly none of them. On FakeGate, Black posted so quickly that he had to rewrite it after Heartland replied, which happened in the first 24 hours.

With ClimateGate, Black ignored the emails that were effectively public property in the first place and turned out to be real. With Fakegate, Black either detailed or linked to quotes that turned out to be nonexistent (at least, I presume that’s what he needed to “re-work”, where is the original stored?).

Then there’s the point that ClimateGate is material to the scientific practices of lead authors in an issue of major planetary concern; FakeGate is about small amounts of legal, private funding that are irrelevant to the science. Oh yessity, those influential tiny funds from anonymous citizens must be public knowledge, (and forthwith!) but the original raw data of the worlds temperature stations? I don’t think so and stop harassing those scientists.

Point to note: Black is paid by public funds to report both sides of the story in an unbiased manner. The Heartland Institute  is not.

With ClimateGate, Black was still referring to it o’ so carefully, as theso-called ClimateGate issue more than two weeks after it happened,  even though, by then, there were millions of pages using the term. (Those  unnewsworthy heretics and all.) With FakeGate, he picked up the “DenierGate” term within 24 hours, and a month later, as far as I can tell, he still hasn’t used the term “FakeGate”, even though it’s beating “DenierGate” in the google stakes fully ten to one. (On last search “FakeGate scored 420,000 hits compared to DenierGate at 36,000. Now there’s a case study in a PR disaster.)

Black entirely missed the big story in ClimateGate, which was how trusted scientists were flagrantly breaching standards of honesty, good practice and transparency, and were admitting doing scandalous adjustments including “hiding declines”, dodging FOI’s, and colluding to manipulate the supposedly anonymous peer review process. And Black largely missed the big story in FakeGate too, of how an allegedly top researcher, Peter Gleick, stooped to impersonation, trickery and theft to “win” a debate about science. If stealing-to-save-the-atmosphere is permissible, then isn’t adjusting-the-data, or ignoring-inconvenient-data also “helpful”?

If it’s hidden it must be news?

Black has since posted more on the Heartland documents. When it comes to theft and privacy, his view is that it’s all fair game: ‘As the old saying goes, “news is something that someone somewhere doesn’t want you to know” - and here was information about a significant player in climate politics that it certainly didn’t want you to have.’ (Richard, did you say that about the ClimateGate emails?)

As a tool for “newsworthiness” it’s not too sharp. If it were possible to impersonate Black, and steal his school reports and exam results, and Black “didn’t want you to know those details” then apparently that makes it news, and, according to Black, you the thief, have every right to keep those files publicly posted even after Black asks you to take them down, even though his test scores, like Heartlands’ budget, make zero difference to the science of our climate.

Note to Black, sometimes people ‘hide’ honest boring things for honest boring reasons.

‘O the ethical quagmire

He wonders if it was ethical to write about the Heartland stolen documents, and explains that it’s like MPs wasting tax payer funds: “Perhaps the best recent UK example is the Daily Telegraph’s long-running series of articles revealing serial abuses of the expenses system by MPs.” So Black thinks that private donations from citizens he disagrees with are “like” MP’s wasting tax payer funds? How could that be? One organisation threatens you with jail if you don’t hand over a quarter of your earnings, the other asks for voluntary contributions. How is it “the same” if the forced contributions are squandered on oak toilet-seat covers, and the unforced ones are spent on things Richard Black disagrees with, like 1,000 page science reports, that the voluntary funders were keen to see?

Heartland is serving its supporters well, but UK parliamentarians were cheating theirs so badly they went to jail. There is no moral equivalence except in the minds of the immoral totalitarians who don’t like it when people disagree with them.

When did Black report on those ClimateGate emails?

…If we did a double blind test, could we tell what was written by “Black” and what was written by the UEA marketing team?

Now perhaps I missed it, but I’ve searched and I can’t see any emails quoted in any of Richard Blacks articles. Things he published in the following week notably lack anything other than the excuses that the UEA PR team would have been happy to provide, see Fri 27th Nov. On the second Sat 5th Dec, the excuses run thick: climategate is described as a “smear campaign” by skeptics — except that when we say “hide the decline” or “delete those emails” we’re just quoting the scientists. If this is a smear campaign, it’s the UEA scientists who are smearing themselves.

Black makes sure he also mentions (as any PR agent of UEA surely would too) that the “University of East Anglia, (is) repository of one of the important records of global temperatures.” Anyone who read the climategate emails (ie, not those who rely on the BBC) would have known that Phil Jones had lost those very same records, and that what was left was in a state of abysmal disorder. In other words, it’s not just that Black is biased, it’s that he is so biased, he could have been the PR writer for the UEA.

If we did a double blind test, could we tell what was written by “Black” and what was written by the UEA marketing team?

Black is fast, he’s the first and the fastest apologist for poor science in the mainstream press, but he isn’t fast to report the news.

What about the BBC? When did they finally cover the emails and report the news?

The first BBC story was not about Climategate, but about a possibly mythical “hacking”. So when did the BBC report the emails? Short answer: I don’t know. Did they? (Can anyone find a story where they did? I can’t, but it’s a big site).

The big concession from the BBC was that one early news item (Mon Nov 23rd 2009, by nameless at the BBC) actually does quote one single Climategate email — though prepacked with the response from Phil Jones both before the email, and after it, lest anyone read it “uninoculated” and think for one second that scientists really ought not be using tricks to hide declines. The subheader above this devastating email  is, wait for it, “Globally Respected”. That’s something science journalists at the BBC most surely will not be when the public realizes they’ve been carefully spoonfed only half the story.

The original BBC “News” item  still headlines it as a “hack”, calls the person who released the emails an “offender”. It did not mention that it might have been a legal leak by a whistleblower, or that some of the emails were subject to FOI anyway, and all of the emails were work related emails funded by taxpayers. So the BBC didn’t report on ClimateGate, and they didn’t get much about that other “hacking” story right either.

When the BBC talks about the damage to science, they discuss how science is ‘damaged’ by leaked emails  but not how science is damaged by scientists who hide declines…

It’s what they don’t say that advertises their bias.

At the same time as ClimateGate was running hot, Richard Black wrote a story about the mysterious lack of female skeptics, and he referred to me vaguely, but wouldn’t name me, link to me, or write and ask my opinion.  Not too hot on the research eh Richard? I had the answer he wasn’t looking for: Why don’t women want to face global bullies? I can’t imagine…

When ClimateGate II broke, Black was fast — fast to do damage control for his favorite pet theory. See  ClimateGate II: Handy Guide to spot whitewash journalism – The top 10 excuses for scientists behaving badly.

Always remember, in the handy-guide to journalist-spotting: Real journalists report what happened and PR agents cover up what happened.

————————————————————————————

Is there a page I missed?

Proving a negative is difficult — the BBC site is large, and I haven’t read every article. I searched  BBC coverage from the beginning. I found these below, as well as the ones above. I’ll be happy to update this story if anyone can find BBC articles which do discuss the emails with actual quotes of the emails themselves, not just apologist quotes of why the-emails-they-won’t-mention don’t matter.

‘Squeaky clean’ climategate report | Climategate scientists cleared |

‘No malpractice’ by climate unit | Climate email review to be published |

‘ClimateGate’ professor cleared | Expert slams ‘tabloid’ e-mail row |

Further Reading: Other stories about the BBC on this site.
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (141 votes cast)
Richard Black -- the fastest apologist for misbehaving scientists, 9.5 out of 10 based on 141 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/7jftjpx

102 comments to Richard Black — the fastest apologist for misbehaving scientists

  • #

    Good one Jo. Have you emailed this to Black?

    00

  • #

    With apologies to Erich Segal – being an environmental journalist, means never having to say sorry. There’s a shiny freshly-hired team of legal predators just engaged by the Heartland Institue who hope that’s true. Lots of work for them and lots of punitive damages for their client.

    Pointman

    00

    • #
      Anna Keppa

      Maybe I’m missing something, but in the Heartland case who are the “legal predators” preying on?

      Is Gleick a tethered goat?

      00

    • #

      Hi Anna. It’s a complicated business. I think it was Woody Allen, who made the remark that nature fascinated him. It was all like a big restaurant, except the distinction between the diners and dined upon got hazy at times.

      Pointman

      00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    The biased BBC is there for all to read about at http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

    A search for “Richard Black” shows that he features prominently.

    00

  • #
    Sean

    The British public are beginning to get the bills for climate mitigation, renewable energy and the like while the Australian public are looking down the barrel of a new set of increases for energy expenses trickling down from the carbon tax. There is nothing that draws scrutiny like a bill in the mail that must be paid. These taxes (through higher energy prices) have negatively impacted the UK economy and I’ve heard that mining projects are already being put on hold in Australia. I am sure the folks in the UK, the rest of Europe and Australia are beginning to realize they are the only ones shacked by these costs and that the predicted temperature changes just aren’t materializing. But I wonder, who will be held more accountable for the resultant economic quagmire; scientists, journalists or politicians. I see a broad loss of faith lost in the ruling elite. That will be healthy change.

    00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      Don’t worry,the United Nations have got everything under their control.

      00

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        Don’t worry,the United Nations have got everything under their control.

        Not quite Everything. But they are working feverishly to bring everything under their control.

        00

  • #
    spence

    The BBC had the climategate1 emails weeks before they became public.

    00

    • #
      Snotrocket

      - And the Fakegate story for less than 24 hours…

      00

    • #
      Fred Bloggs

      This is a myth. The BBC did not have the climategate emails. The confusion arises because BBC reporter Paul Hudson was one of the recipients of one of the emails in the climategate pack and was able to confirm that it was genuine and by extension that the climategate emails were genuine. The BBC did NOT have the climategate leaked emails before anyone else.

      00

      • #
        misterned

        What is the difference between a BBC science correspondent having the climategate files and the BBC having the files? Either way, the BBC did have knowledge of and access to the climate gate files for a number of days before climate change blogs published them online. The BBC had access and chose to deny.instead of investigate and report.

        00

  • #
    Bruce

    Hi! (nice blog)!

    00

  • #
    RB

    The answer is simple. Richard Black is not a journalist.

    00

    • #
      Tel

      That very much depends on whose definition of “journalist” you are working with.

      00

      • #
        misterned

        One of the leading voices in the U.S.
         on the subject of Journalistic Standards and Ethics is the Society of Professional Journalists…
        . The Preamble to its Code of Ethics states:…public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.

        By that standard, Richard Black is an advocate or an activist firmly promoting cAGW orthidoxy but he certainly is NOT a journalist. And especially NOT a journalist who is worthy of upholding the BBC’s charter obligation to impartiality.

        00

  • #
    brc

    Journalists like Black will never get it. For one, they can’t be seen to be wrong. For two, their entire industry is on board, and nobody wants to miss out on a luvvie award for breaking the party line. If you do break the party line, prepare to be thrown under the bus.

    Reporting the truth or even attempting to find both sides of a story have nothing to do with it.

    In the case of public broadcasters, they’re protected from market forces, which is why it is frustrating to those paying the bills.

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    I remember climategate I very well.

    There would be articles headlined on the net which were being manipulated so you would click on them and there would be just a few feeble words saying things like “you are being misled” or some short statement like that -instead of the article posted in drudge or whatever.

    And then there was the silence from the catastrafarians. An organised, stunned and disciplined silence. That lasted more than a week.

    Maybe they thought if they ignored it, it would go away? After all, the big media hitters were doing their best to keep a lid on it with copenhagen just around the corner.

    While this went nuclear in the Northern hemisphere, Rudd and guilleard were working to shove through the cprs down everyone’s throats so Rudd could plaything visionary dictator at Copenhagen.

    And there was a deafening silence from the Australian msm. When it was covered it was being pitched as just being some nasty emails between scientists. If only!

    We had environmentalist journos talking about climategate emails as being a mere blip on the radar for considering engagement and one of them even stated when asked about China, that china would be onboard with copenhagen because he “knew all of China scientists and they were all on board”.

    And who can forget all those 30,000 activists protesting for cop15 in one of the most bitterly cold winter weeks experienced in ages. Ohhh, the irony!

    And then there was the leaked draft accord requiring signatory countries to cede sovereignty.

    And Manbearpig offering handshakes for $1200 a shot. Gee, what a superstar he was at the time. He later backed out of the idea and chose to ignore everyone instead.

    And then, when copenhagen disintegrated, who can forget how rudd flew over there promising he would be the elder statesman to sort things out.

    Interesting times indeed. I still find the code from climategate as being the smoking gun for me. But most people aren’t even aware there was code.

    00

  • #
    David C

    Great analysis Jo. You have a wonderful way of drawing the comparisons that are blindingly obvious, but only once they’ve been pointed out! Thanks for your time and effort. It would be nice to think that Black and his ilk would end up out of journalism once the wheels finally fall off the AGW go-kart, but I fear there will be many more bandwagons for them to jump on.

    00

  • #

    The current demise of Western science and civilization results from secret, fear-driven agreements made between Nixon, Chairman Mao, Kissinger, Chiou En-Lai and Breshnev in 1971: Fear of mutual nuclear annihilation because:

    a.) Hiroshima was evaporated on 6 Aug 1945 and
    b.) The Cuban Missile crisis in late Oct 1962:

    http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Cuban-Missile-Crisis.aspx

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Climategate_Roots.pdf

    Today world leaders are trapped with the rest of us, like rats on a sinking ship, because they secretly decided in 1971 to hide information about the nuclear force that powers nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors and the Sun, and agreed to domesticate us instead by directing science to a study of computer models of reality (social engineering).

    However, the source of energy that creates and destroys elements and sustains life on Earth was recorded in the nuclear ashes that formed the Solar System, and it is now recorded in nuclear rest mass data of extant chemical elements:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/n556224311414604/

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1n87370x6685079/

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Neutron_repulsion.pdf

    New observations, showing elements linked to their source:

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/rxte-thermo.html

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120310150004.htm

    Reveal why leaders of NAS, NASA and DOE refuse to answer simple questions like this in public: “Is element #1 (hydrogen) the fuel or the waste product from the energy source that sustains life on Earth?”

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Question_Bolden_Chu_Ciscerone.pdf

    CONCLUSIONS: Cause-and-effect control the physical world – not world leaders nor their armies of government scientists glued to computer models of reality. On admitting powerlessness over everything that is controlled by cause-and-effect, world leaders and their scientific advisors might escape their ego cages, enter the spiritual world, and discover for themselves that ancient spiritual truths better reflect reality than computer models.

    00

  • #
    JohnBUK

    Sadly we in the UK, currently, have no option re the BBC – if we buy a TV then our details are forwarded to the Licensing authorities to ensure we pay the annual Fee (Tax) approx £150 for the BBC. Anyone who doesn’t pay gets threatening letters (even those who have no TV!). In this day and age how weird and authoritarian is that? On top of that we get Richard (pillock) Black.

    I can’t see any political party stopping it either.

    00

    • #
      Cynthia

      Ah, but in the USA with satellite and cable television (no analog freebies left), you have the privilege of paying for your own propagandizing.

      00

    • #

      We chucked out the TV years ago, fed up of funding the Propaganda Arm of New Labour. And such crap on it as well. Don’t miss it, and I can always get an internet feed for any sports I want to watch.

      However, we still get threatening letters, and have huge fun provoking TVLA (who, by the way, are run by Capita – it is worth noting that oddly, they are one of the few “public” bodies they have NO right of access to your property – so you can tell the to go take a running jump if they knock at your door. Filming them as you do).

      So we get our biennial letter.

      I respond – “We have previously informed you that we do not own a TV nor intend do. What is it about ‘We do not own a TV’ that you don’t understand?”

      Usually a further follow up threat, to which I respond

      “In effect, you have accused me of lying. Please put this on paper, so that I may commence a legal action against you”.

      That shuts them up for another to years, and then we start all over again…

      00

      • #
        MangoChutney

        No TV, no car, always have recycled etc etc etc

        I’m so green, I’m cabbage looking

        00

        • #

          Live in the country so have to have motor transport; the concept of “public transport” here in the rural South West is still largely … conceptual. When HS2 is built, you will be able to train it from London to Manchester faster than from Frome to Bristol (when the train turns up, that is)

          Blah.

          00

  • #
    Snotrocket

    “…the BBC site is large…”

    And it is paid for with a poll tax. We (in the UK) have no say in it.

    I’ve said it before, and I shall continue saying is: Black should be sacked!

    00

  • #
    amcoz

    Jo, once ‘it’ goes into the ‘memory hole’ it’s gone forever, ‘it’ now has never existed.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    I understand that the BBC Employees Pension fund has a number of large green “investments” in their portfolio. Shouldn’t these be disclosed by the likes of Mr. Black – after all – there could well be the perceived conflict of interest here. Or don’t such moral niceties apply to the BBC?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

    • #
      KeithH

      Hi Speedy.

      As I understand it the entire BBC Pension Fund is with this mob. IIGCC used to list all their members but have become very coy recently and have a Members access only area. You don’t have to wonder why the BBC rabidly push the CAGW scam!

      Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change

      http://www.iigcc.org/

      00

  • #
    michael hammer

    Very well written article Jo. It is convincing to anyone willing and capable of exercising critical unbiased thinking but I fear it will never convince believers like Black. Then again, I doubt if anything would – it would be like trying to convince a bishop that god does not exist.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/T but a couple articles of interest sprung up today. Firstly we have BoM banging the drum loudly for Climate Change again in their biennial report, as reported at The West and elsewhere:

    The West – 5C warming by 2070, paper bag on head, kiss behind goodbye /yawn
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/13159615/was-south-west-drying-out-fast/

    SMH – Carbom emissions hit new record, scream, rant /double yawn
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-emissions-hit-a-new-record-20120313-1uyk8.html

    The actual report at BoM: Oh wait … not released yet, need to have the media causing an alarmist frenzy first. Never let the facts get in the way of a good scare campaign…

    Completely unrelated news is that the Greens are holding Gillard’s Government to ransom over the MRRT:
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/greens-put-24bn-business-tax-cuts-at-risk/story-fn59nsif-1226298696232

    Got to love how disingenuous the Green are – their fearless leader is quoted as saying:

    “The government has the numbers with us to get through the tax cuts for small business, and we have the numbers with the opposition to stop the tax cuts – the $2.4bn – for the big corporations like Rio and BHP and the four big banks,” he said. “This mining tax bill will go through, but the corporate tax arrangements can now be altered in the Senate to make sure there’s better funding of the public interest.”

    How do you lie straight in bed when you tell whoppers like BHP and Rio are getting a tax cut? Excuse me, but the MRRT is an effective 22.5% increase in tax on their coal and iron ore operations, let alone the effective double royalty on their onshore petroleum projects, which will be subject to both state royalties AND the PRRT under the new legislation.

    How can anyone take this party seriously? Put the Greens in power for one term and they would turn Australia into the next Greece. Somehow these economic cretins get inordinate amount of airplay in the Australian media, and yet they claim bias against them… colour me befuddled.

    00

    • #
      crakar24

      Dont you love the way they do things?

      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/annual_sum/2011/AnClimSum2011_LR1.0.pdf

      First they start off by saying 2011 was 0.25C below the 1961-1990 average due to La Nina and the last time this happened was in 2001 also due to La Nina(section 1)

      But never fear La Nina will not save you because the very next section (1) they tell you it was the hottest La Nina over recorded so nah nan nanah nah to all you sceptics out there.

      The rest is just the usual gibberish however section ten is worth mentioning they claim that the steep drop in ocean levels was due to all the rain that the globe had and of course as this rain flows back into the oceans the level will go back to normal but we are talking about a 5mm (almost a quarter inch) drop exactly how much rain would that equate to? I think they are telling porky pies on this one.

      When it comes to the SST once again we are in hot water (pun intended) did you know we had accurate measuremenst of our oceans way back in 1910? I did not know that so there you go.

      00

      • #

        As that famed Roman Catholic priest Pat Hartigan (John O’Brien)once said:

        We’ll all be rooned

        I notice the phenomenal temperature rise, indicating the we will in fact all be ruined.

        That temperature rise has been 0.7C since 1920, and that’s the AVERAGE Australian temperature.

        Man, talk about Runaway.

        Also, wow, the CO2 level is the highest for 800,000 years.

        See, aren’t we glad now that those dinosaurs got rid of those coal fired power plants.

        Note the Pie Chart at this link.

        Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions

        Note the percentage for electricity generation.

        Note Industrial processes.

        Note the next big target Agriculture 16%, bigger in fact than transport. So, umm, source all our food from offshore now.

        Note the fallacious per capita emissions bar chart used again as a pointing dagger. You filthy disgusting Westerners.

        Tony.

        00

    • #
      lmwd

      Also Graham Lloyd in the Australian today. But not brave enough to allow comments I see!

      00

    • #
      Madjak

      Bulldust,

      Carbom emissions…

      Excellent touch!

      00

    • #

      Regarding the BoM, when the report becomes available, read the disclaimer.

      It’ll probably go something like this:

      We’re getting paid loads of money to write stuff so we write stuff to make sure that we get paid loads more money. What we write may be vaguely related to weather but you should poke your head out of the window or ask the cleaner for a better report; let alone a forecast. As for global warming, it’s been clearly evident here as we turned on our third super-computer to prove that it’s getting warmer because you guys are wasting too much energy. Whatever you read here is purely here because we’ve written it. None of what is written comes with any guarantee of accuracy or correctness. You must do all your own meteorological monitoring using your own network of surface stations, weather balloons, remote-sensing satellites (as well as a bunch of other stuff to replicate the data which we already collect at your cost, but won’t let you see in its raw form) and employ some real scientists if you need reliable information.

      00

    • #
      brc

      TripleJ ran with a news headline ‘the BOM has reported that carbon in the air has reached the highest in 850,000 years’ or whatever it was. They actually said ‘carbon’ -not co2 or carbon dioxide. The loop on the propaganda is complete – OMG the air is full of carbon – we need a carbon tax!

      They also tied it up with ‘while 2010 and 2011 were cooler, the last decade is the hottest on record blah blah blah’.

      I just want to scream : and how much less carbon will be in the air as a result of the tax? And will the next 10, 20, 50 years be cooler because we’ve had 30,50, 100% increases in energy costs?

      I just got my SEQ Water bill today – government bulk water charges, up 30% in one year. In one year! Where else on the planet is the most basic need of humans increased in price 30%, year on year? We should be rioting in the streets with the 10x inflation figures that water and electricity are going up by.

      00

  • #
    Hawkwood

    The odious, unprofessional hack Mr. Black tweeted the following today:
    “When is it ok for US groups to fund Canadians working on energy and climate, and when isn’t it? http://bit.ly/wszF9c

    He is referring to hundreds of dollars per month going to Canadian skeptics from the Heartland Institute- that’s bad. Meanwhile huge American interests like Tides, WWF,Sierra Club are pumping tens of millions into Canada to shut down the vital Alberta oil-sands refining operation and the Keystone pipeline into the USA- that’s okay. His blatant disregard for facts or scale to attempt to make a comparison between the two is staggering.
    The worst part of this he is ultimately being paid by the British taxpayer, just as our Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is in Canada with their similar bias. I surmise your ABC in OZ is equally biased as well.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Peter Miller

    On behalf of Brits everywhere, I would like to apologise for the abysmal reporting standards of the BBC’s Richard Black.

    Not all BBC reporting is as obviously blinkered as his, but with the prevailing left-leaning culture in the BBC, Richard Black is unlikely to be told to start reporting objectively anytime soon.

    On the plus side, his CAGW bias on all things to do with climate, has become so obvious that only the CAGW cult faithful take him seriously any more.

    00

  • #

    [...] Richard Black — the fastest apologist for misbehaving scientists Black thinks the BBC reported on ClimateGate, instead they rushed to report a “hacking” that may not even have been a hack… [...]

    00

  • #
    Bob Massey

    Also O/T a bit.

    Does anyone here believe that the banks are feathering their nest with the latest bunch of interest rises which completely flout the RBA stand to hedge against a Carbon Tax due to be introduced in July. I have my suspicions but of course they can’t come out and say they are increasing these because of the CT.

    Look out for more innocuous increases not due to the Carbon Tax.

    00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Sorry, Bob, I think it’s nothing stranger than the high cost of money from o’seas. The covered bond issues have been at pretty much what they charge for mortgages. Some business pundits even think they have been making a loss on new home loans recently. If that’s right then no one could keep selling stuff at a loss forever.

      Blame the fact that those few overseas types still with money are scared that the Oz dollar will collapse and so won’t lend to Oz banks without a big juicy interest rate.

      00

  • #

    More recently Richard Black has not just ignored the evidence of the Climategate emails. He has deliberately or incompetently misrepresented the meaning of “Hide the Decline“. The article is worth reading. He makes very nasty comments about skeptics, then is forced to acknowledge his “error” when it is forcefully pointed out in the comments and here.

    Most people would have been sacked for less, or at least moved out of harms way.

    Neither was he alone in doing this. The disease has infected others.

    Furthermore, his data analysis is misleading as well.

    00

  • #

    Might a recommend readers interested in researching more about Richard Black and the BBC to the GWPF report “Christopher Booker: The BBC And Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal”. Black features prominently over the last few years in the promotion of views more extreme than the mainstream BBC.

    The high regard that Black is held in Climate Science circles is shown when a regional weather reporter discusses (on his BBC blog) about the absence of any recent warming. On page 48 quotes a Michael Mann email to Phil Jones 12th Oct 2009

    extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. It’s
    particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he
    does a great job). … it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say
    about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

    00

    • #

      The Himalayan Glaciers episode was more than an isolated, minor error in the AR4 report. Booker on the BBC’s reporting (Pages 50-51)

      ‘Glaciergate’, as this inevitably became known, had become such an embarrassment to the IPCC that it was forced into an unprecedented admission that publication of the claim had been a mistake. ‘The clear and well-established standards of evidence required by the IPCC procedures’, it said, had not been ‘applied properly’. Reporting this retraction on the BBC website, Richard Black nevertheless quoted a senior IPCC official insisting that this was ‘only one error in a 3,000 page report’, which ‘did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change’.
      By now, however, it was already clear that this was far from being just one isolated error. As ‘Glaciergate’ was followed by ‘Amazongate’, ‘Africagate’ and even ‘Pachaurigate’, further revelations about the IPCC’s forth report were appearing on a weekly basis.

      00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    I must have been asleep for the last few years.

    WHO is Richard Black??

    :)

    00

  • #
    pat

    it is not only the BBC/ABC/Greens etc. not a day goes by without some bizarre new study being published suggesting re-engineering humans, or stating more CO2 means more obesity (certain to have WIDE appeal!), or the following (which is no doubt meant to appeal to those who are anti-immigration):

    13 March: Australian: Climate change could cause mass migration
    From correspondents in Manila and AP
    THE Asian Development Bank is warning countries to prepare for influxes of people fleeing natural disasters as climate change exacerbates rising sea levels, soil degradation and seasonal flooding.
    Natural disasters drove 42 million people from their homes in the Asia-Pacific in 2010 and 2011, though it was unclear how many of those were caused by climate change, the bank said in a study released today…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/climate-change-could-cause-mass-migration/story-fn3dxity-1226298558364

    Richard Black has been with the BBC since 2006, initially at BBC World Service (funded by Foreign & Commonwealth Office).

    some Climategate emails suggest he was with the Met Office prior to that, but it seems impossible to find any profile on Black, not even a Wikipedia entry. here he is shilling for Copenhagen with the usual, misleading, accompanying photo, on 17 Nov 2009, the very day the Climategate cache was first uploaded to, and then removed by, RealClimate :

    17 Nov 2009: BBC: Richard Black: Earth ‘heading for 6C’ of warming
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8364926.stm

    Journalisted: Richard Black: 612 articles (back to 2006′s Will Kyoto die at Canadian hands? BBC News, Fri 27 January 2006 )
    http://journalisted.com/richard-black?allarticles=yes

    20 Nov 2010: RealClimate: Gavin Schmidt: One year later
    I woke up on Tuesday, 17 Nov 2009 completely unaware of what was about to unfold. I tried to log in to RealClimate, but for some reason my login did not work. Neither did the admin login. I logged in to the back-end via ssh, only to be inexplicably logged out again. I did it again. No dice. I then called the hosting company and told them to take us offline until I could see what was going on. When I did get control back from the hacker (and hacker it was), there was a large uploaded file on our server, and a draft post ready to go announcing the theft of the CRU emails. And so it began.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/one-year-later/

    in geopolitical terminology, CAGW would be classified as a PSYOPS.

    00

  • #
    pat

    surprise, surprise:

    14 March: SMH: Ben Cubby: Carbon emissions hit a new record
    GREENHOUSE gases have risen to their highest level since modern humans evolved, and Australian temperatures are now about a degree warmer than they were a century ago, a major review by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology has found.
    The national climate report, to be released today, said Australia’s current climate ”cannot be explained by natural variability alone” and that emissions resulting from human activity were playing an increasingly direct role in shaping temperatures…
    ”We saw a dip in carbon dioxide emissions during the global financial crisis, but that period is now over,” said the chief executive of the CSIRO, Megan Clark. ”Levels are now rising steadily again, in line with the trend.”
    The carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere reached 390 parts per million in 2011, the highest level in 800,000 years.
    The average day and night-time temperatures in Australia are now about a degree higher than they were a century ago, the State of the Climate 2012 report said.
    ”Multiple lines of evidence show that global warming continues and that human activities are mainly responsible,” it said…

    Data gathered from gauges around the coast showed sea levels continuing to rise off Sydney and much of the NSW coast at a rate of about 5 millimetres per year, while some areas of the tropics, including Darwin, are seeing rises of up to 1 centimetre per year. Most of the rise is attributed to thermal expansion, or warmer water temperatures meaning that H20 molecules take up more space…
    On average, global sea levels are about 21 centimetres higher today than they were in 1880, when reliable records began to be kept. The report also noted increases in heavy rainfall events across most of eastern Australia, but also more bushfires. The trend for Sydney is towards more monsoonal rains.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-emissions-hit-a-new-record-20120313-1uyk8.html#ixzz1p1Y7uDE1” title=”here”>here</a

    Plus Video: CO2 levels on the increase
    Dr Paul Fraser discusses the CSIRO changing atmosphere research group's latest findings on the increase of CO2 levels into the atmosphere.

    00

    • #

      Say,

      I have an observation here on how those recorded temperatures have risen,and note it is by only 0.7C in ninety years, AVERAGED Australia wide.

      We moved to Queensland with Mum and Dad in 1960 from Mexico. (Victoria for International readers)

      I was only a young boy, the eldest of five children, but even then I would watch the News every night, and especially the weather report, because, well, there was only 8 or 9 hours of TV in those days anyway, and other than the cowboy shows and Pick A Box, there wasn’t much else on, and with a staunch Mum who said no TV until homework was finished, and then, right you lot, outside and play, so the News was the first time the TV got turned on.

      That weather report at the end was always interesting, because Queensland had such quaint place names. They always gave the State’s maximum temperature, and nine days out of ten, it was always Urandangie.

      Nowadays, Urandangie is never mentioned, not because it’s not as hot as it always has been, but now there are many more places where observations are taken.

      In those days, those small outback towns never had set weather stations, but they were always hot.

      So, what I’m saying here is that no wonder that the average temperature has risen. All of those really hot places now have dedicated weather checking and they all report. They are as hot as they have always been, but now more hot places are reporting.

      I know, I know, the same may also apply for colder places, but think of it. A warm place is always more likely to be settled than a cold place, so it only stands to reason that more and more hotter places are in fact reporting, and from that, it is only simple logic to see why the AVERAGE temperature has risen.

      Think of all those outback towns all across the huge length and breadth Oz, now all reporting, and I’ll guarantee there are more hot ones than cold ones.

      I can see all those warmists out there right now, scoffing at me, labelling me as a simple deltaechonovemberindiaechoromeo. (I hope this is OK with the moderators, nyuk nyuk nyuk!)

      But hey, use some logic here. This is just so bloody obvious!

      Tony.

      00

      • #
        crakar24

        Your problem here Tony is that you were living in Canada, the weather in Mexico is so much nicer.

        In regards to your suggestion i would say that you raise a very good point, if say they simply added up up all the temps and then divided that by the total number of stations to get the average then maybe not but as we know there is a complicated formlae that they use to bash the data into submission.

        I would also like to propsoe another problem that you touched on, as you say there was an increase in the number of stations over the years but do tell, how many stations are there between Woomera and Alice Springs? If you said none you would be very close so whilst the stations may have increased our sampling area of the country has not.

        Cheers

        00

        • #

          Far outback there carkar24,

          …..but do tell, how many stations are there between Woomera and Alice Springs?

          A tick over 1000Km, and only 8 weather reporting Stations in that direct area, and with two more added, one at each end.

          Tony.

          00

          • #
            crakar24

            The point being Tony if you wish to accurately record and then pontificate over how much global warming is happening here in Oz you have to have a number of stations evenly placed throughout the entire nation (what distant between stations is the only challenge) but they need to be evenly spaced.

            From this you can calculate the average and how far above the average we are as this has never happened and is not likely to happen then any talk about global warming bullshit based on the temps is just that…..bullshit.

            00

  • #
    Oblong

    And “our” ABC: “Exposing the Heartland Institute”

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/exposing-the-heartland-institute/3880292

    “Robyn Williams: But if an organisation (and the Heartland Institute has a lot of money and a lot of influence) is, as you were saying, spreading doubt and confusion, isn’t that a good reason perhaps to use rather devious means to get at what they are actually trying to do?”

    “Robyn Williams: Peter Gleick’s clever trick was to confirm by pretending to be someone else…”

    Etc.

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    A little O/T but here is a chance to vote on what you think of Micheal Mann. Let me warn you that the article that this comes from is a little sickening, but you do get to add your vote to a poll that they are running and there are some choices that you will like. You better be quick because at the rate the votes are going, the poll will not be showing for very long …

    Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/7t49zkr

    H/T WUWT.

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Gotta love them results.

      Mann is a hero = 21 votes.
      Mann is a crook = 514 votes.

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        I agree Truthseeker

        It will probably be taken down – you can only guess that no one has checked it yet.

        :)

        00

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      It just gets better.

      Hero = 23 votes.
      Crook = 1034 votes.

      00

    • #
      old44

      Poll at 6:00pm EST
      Michael Mann

      1. did not choose to became a symbol
      0%
      4 votes

      2. has been attacked in many of the same ways that the President and John Kerry were
      0%
      1 votes

      3. Is an outstanding scientist and human being
      0%
      4 votes

      4. all of the above
      1%
      17 votes

      5. is distorting evidence to prove his point
      72%
      1085 votes

      6. should be fired from the university
      25%
      387 votes

      1498 votes | Results

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        Mann = hero – 31 votes.
        Mann = crook – 1757 votes.

        God I love the internet.

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          So, it’s official.

          Fully 1.73% of all climate scientists agree that Michael Mann is a good guy.
          Or, if you prefer, a mere 98.27% of climate scientists agree that Michael Mann is a crook.

          What! Wait . . . You say not ALL those voting were bona fide climate scientists?
          Then how come that didn’t matter when we arrived at the “97% of all climate scientists agree” consensus?

          Surely we wouldn’t impose a different set of standards just ‘cos it’s Hokey Schtick Mann?

          00

          • #
            Truthseeker

            MemoryVault, your logic is as impeccable as the IPCC’s …

            Latest count (voting seems to be over) total votes cast: 3071

            For: 53 1.73%
            Against: 3018 98.27%

            Now, if they would only run a poll about Peter Gleick …

            00

  • #

    Jo cites Black, the Journolite™, and his hypocrisy:

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

    By his warped logic, Michael Mann can no longer to be considered a “significant player in climate politics”, because Black doesn’t seem to consider that which Mann doesn’t want you to know as “news”!

    Black’s investigative thoroughness appears to match that of those who conducted the various enquiries pursuant to Climategate. Their operating “principle” seemed to be:

    Asking the wrong questions of the wrong people is virtually guaranteed to yield the right answer.

    But on a brighter note, Canada’s CBC – not unlike your ABC (and the BBC, of course) – is known for its unquestioning banging of the alarmist drum at every possible opportunity. Yesterday they broadcast the first of a two-part series on Demon Coal. This program was excellent – and so balanced that I kept looking up at the sky outside my window expecting to see certain critters fly by!

    Judith Curry was interviewed and, as she does most of the time, made an awful lot of sense – and very good, well-articulated points. And – miracle of miracles – hers was not the only non-alarmist voice heard! Be sure to take your mouse to http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Radio/Ideas/1453660136/ID=2208383550. It will be well worth the effort.

    And while I’m here …

    Readers might be interested in another climate related story you probably won’t hear from Black, Revkin and other Journolites™ . Take a guess at how many NGO’s have received the imprimateur of accredited “consultative status” with the UN from 1946-2011… which gives these organizations all kinds of benefits and “privileges”.

    With absolutely no fiddling, fudging, or fanciful false moves … the numbers yield a … wait for it … hockey stick ;-) Yes, really! And the data is all there for you to verify for yourself!

    00

  • #
    pat

    please explain why AAP did not get a response from the Opposition?

    14 March: SMH: AAP: PM pounces on CSIRO climate report
    Labor and the Australian Greens have seized on the CSIRO’s latest State of the Climate report to again argue Australia is right to be putting a price on carbon emissions from the middle of this year…
    Prime Minister Julia Gillard says the CSIRO has reinforced the need for effective action to tackle dangers of global warming.
    “Putting a price on carbon is the best way, the cheapest way, indeed the only effective way of cutting emissions,” she told reporters in Canberra.
    “We’ve stared down a cheap populist campaign to get the right thing done for the nation and it will come on stream from July 1.”
    Greens deputy leader Christine Milne says the CSIRO report is another wake-up call…
    “What we ought to be able to do now is say that’s it – no more discussion about whether climate change is happening or not,” Senator Milne told reporters at Parliament House.
    “It’s real, it’s happening.”
    Senator Milne said the report proved how important it was that the climate change authority – which will provide advice on pollution caps – could “increase the level of ambition in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as people begin to realise just how quickly we have to make this transition to the low-carbon economy”.
    The rest of the world would soon start ratcheting up its response “very quickly”, she said.
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pm-pounces-on-csiro-climate-report-20120314-1v1yl.html

    “stared down a cheap populist campaign”!!!

    00

  • #
    old44

    What is the technical difference between “historical revisionism” and a “lie”

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    The reasons why Black & the BBC wanted Climategate ignored!

    27/11/2011. “It was only last weekend that the BBC’s Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin and Dr Joe Smith of the Open University made headlines in the Mail on Sunday newspaper. This was because their jointly run – Cambridge Media and Environment Program – (CMEP) that had organised seminars at the BBC between 1996 and 2009 had been revealed to have received funding from the Tyndall Centre (UEA) from 2002 -2006.

    These facts alone seems to be a significant conflict of interest that should concern the BBC Trust.

    The most controversial seminar that CMEP organised was in January 2006, in conjunction with IBT, it was entitled – Climate Change – A Challenge to Broadcasting in January 2006. At this event it was effectively decided that the science was settled and sceptics should receive less airtime by the BBC. And in 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that:

    ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/

    “Conservative MP David Davis said: ‘Using research money to evangelise one point of view and suppress another defies everything I ever learnt about the scientific method. These emails go to the heart of the BBC’s professed impartiality … its actions must be investigated.’”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music–game-shows.html

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    More from the same article at WUWT, with an interesting highlight. One of the rare times the IPCC faced reality!

    “Mike Hulme:

    “Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.” (email 2496)

    “Mike Hulme clearly did not like this program and clearly sponsors CMEP to use its influence with it BBC seminars to change reporting at the BBC, with an apparent intent to suppress any sceptical voices. A commentator at the Bishop Hill blog tracked down the ‘woeful’ program, where Prof Philip Stott and the IPCC’s Sir John Houghton debate the “uncertainties” of climate change”, it is mentioned in a 25 Feb 2002 article by Alex Kirby, BBC online environment correspondent, there is an audio link in the article to the radio program (probably UK only, well worth a listen)

    Alex Kirby in the article quotes Stott as saying:

    “The problem with a chaotic coupled non-linear system as complex as climate is that you can no more predict successfully the outcome of doing something as of not doing something. Kyoto will not halt climate change. Full stop.” – BBC

    I might agree with Mike Hulme that Sir John Houghton performed poorly, but here were 2 scientists talking about uncertainties, nearly ten years ago. I see nothing wrong with that program, it appears to present balance, with views from scientists with different opinions. In fact that quote of Stott appears to be almost directly from the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment report (the one with the ‘hockey stick’ graph in) around the time of the interview,

    “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC 2001 TAR Pg 771 “

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/

    00

  • #
    Athelstan.

    Richard Black, it is reported will soon be leaving the headquarters of Al beeb in London and will move to his new position as assistant gopher to the minister in charge of a new HMG department, it will be called the “Ministry of Truth”.

    Black will be touring the country with a ‘workshop’ and staff of suitable green lunatic Socialistas + luvvies. They will visit schools and colleges and be indoctrinating teaching children on the new mysteries and texts of the AGW orthodoxy@hmg.propaganda [look it up - it's unreal]. The theme of the workshop will be; “Mission impossible, Britain’s green energy commitment and a return to the pre-industrial dark ages, you can never pay too much”.

    00

  • #
    Stacey

    Richard Black is a complete disgrace and intellectual non-entity. That he gets paid at all for the regurgitated pap prepared by his fellow travellers on the fragrant green gravy train is a disgrace. That his biased reporting is paid for by us makes his actions even worse.
    The BBC is institutionally alarmist and bias is the culture the reporters feed upon.
    A very good programme called Orbit was broadcast a week ago, plenty of mention of climate , none of climate change? The second episode fine, the very end then the usual nonsense about CO2.
    When an organisation constantly lies in the face of the truth about one topic one can only assume it is lying about everything else or at least biased.

    00

  • #

    [...] Richard Black — the fastest apologist for misbehaving scientists [...]

    00

  • #

    re: climate gate “hacker”

    The correct term given the administrator-like insight into what e-mail was where and how it was organized (and targeted in disclosure) is “Whistleblower.”

    But that would give too much credence to the story for any of these government rags.

    00

  • #
    hanspeter born

    This article should be sent to prominent BBC journalists like Andrew Marr,Andrew Neill, Jeremy Paxman, etc. (not living in the U.K.
    I don’t know who matters) and the editors of current affairs programmes.

    Black’s reporting is a scandal. No serious journalist can possibly condone such dishonest work.

    This is not about Black. This is about the reputation of the BBC, an institution that used to admired
    all over the world

    00

  • #
    Neil Craig

    Though Black did write “”Denier-gate” is the label being applied in the blogosphere” but that is certainly not fully true and mey be a deliberate lie.

    When I read it I googled the term and found no mentions which clearly predated his own so it was certainly not generally applied across the blogsphere.

    I did email the BBC asking for confirmation ofwhich blogs he had seen it on but the BBC have decided not to reply.

    I think it quite possible he invented the term and claimed it as general. This is not as unusual a tactic as it may seem as it adds non-existent public support to the journalists story. Hence, for example, the media insisted Milosevic was popularly known as the “Butcher of Belgrade” despite there being no fighting in Belgrade, him actually killing nobody (as proven in his “trial”) and the term only working in English. A similar example is the “Glasgow kiss” (headbut) which appeared first in a newspaper article which claimed it was inn common usage & now IS in common usage.

    00

  • #
  • #
    wrmthttrnd

    Finding examples of truthful reporting by the BBC across a range of the most important subjects is difficult. In August 2011 the BBC gleefully showed allegedly live footage of libyan people celebrating and waving flags in Green Square, Tripoli. Whereas in fact what they showed was footage of an Indian rally with people waving Indian flags! Is there any way of making them accountable for their blatant deceit in reporting of current affairs, including climate change?

    00

  • #
    PMT

    Jo, a copy of the original BBC BlackHeart FakeDenierGate article can be found here:-
    http://www.webcitation.org/65TlqE1kC

    PMT (Paul)

    00

  • #
    Neil McEvoy

    Nice work Jo.

    One small quibble: would that the British government only demand with menaces one-quarter of my income. Unfortunately, that’s an understatement of British proportions.

    00

  • #
    unknownknowns

    Paul Hudson | 20:02 UK time, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 had this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml claiming to have sat on it since the previous week. He claims, on the blog, to have passed the info. onto Harrabin who had this on the earlier Saturday: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm

    If these have been coveraed already accept my apologies as I haven’t read through all the replies yet.

    00

  • #
    Chris S

    I can’t see the BBC existing in its current form for too much longer. The ideologists who have hijacked it are so obviously and blatantly biased, they’ve left themselves nowhere to go.

    00

  • #
    DougS

    I am so ashamed of the BBC.

    Once a byword for impartial, authoritative and accurate reporting it is now an organisation that I would be happy to see broken up and sold off.

    I usually prefix BBC with the word “unspeakable” (Lord Monckton Trademark) but I’m now not sure that fully conveys the disgust I feel towards it.

    I would like to think that a few mavericks are to blame for the AGW and left-wing bias displayed by the BBC but I’m sure it is much deeper and goes to the heart of the organisation.

    Only a complete clear out will fix the problem.

    00

  • #
    Michael Berry

    I see Ms. Nova is still up to her global warming denial nonsense. I suspect she favors Rick Santorum who beieves that Adam and Eve walked with the dinosaurs. Wonderful!

    ——————-

    REPLY: Michael, thanks for the wonderful example of believer reasoning and research. You’ve earned a place in the spam filter. Congrats. Jo

    00

  • #

    [...] a perfect example of this blind faith in action, Jo Nova compares and contrasts the coverage of two stories – Climategate and Fakegate – by our old friend Richard Black of the BBC. On [...]

    00

  • #

    Jo, if you look at Black’s list of articles http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/richard_black/, it does not include the Nov 20 BBC article that you attribute to Black in your post. Nor does Black’s tweet specifically say that he authored the Nov 20 article – only that it was a BBC article. As you acutely observe, it does not appear that Black covered the content of the climategate emails at the time.

    00

  • #

    Jo, as of November 23, at Richard Black’s BBC blog, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/11/copenhagen_countdown_17_days.html, they were deleting content from the Climategate emails because of potential legal issues, noting concerns about authenticity.

    Update 2309: Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.

    Update 2 – 0930 GMT Monday 23 November: We have now re-opened comments on this post. However, legal considerations mean that we will not publish comments quoting from e-mails purporting to be those stolen from the University of East Anglia, nor comments linking to other sites quoting from that material.

    Update 3 – 2116 GMT Monday 23 November: As lots of material apparently from the stolen batch of CRU e-mails is now in the public domain, we will not from now on be removing comments simply because they quote from these e-mails.

    However, an important couple of caveats: a) the authenticity of most of the material has not to our knowledge been confirmed, and b) it would be easy when posting quotes to break inadvertently some of the House Rules – such as the one barring posting of contact details – which are still in operation and which will see comments being blocked.

    00

  • #

    Thanks, JoNova, for all your efforts to untangle the Climategate web.

    It appears this cancer grew out of sight for at least five decades (1956-2009), and the evolution of knowledge about Earth’s heat source – the Sun – was blocked to “save the world” from mutual nuclear annihilation.

    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/

    00

  • #
    Coldish

    Superb post, Jo!

    00

  • #
    michael hart

    Richard Black is at his most transparent when he sets about proselytizing specific groups, or casting aspersions on others. Joanne has noted here his sales-pitch for the female vote [or implying that sceptics are male and misogynistic].

    A few months ago he wrote piece about some junk-climate conference for some PR pen-pushers at the Ministry of Defence. The take home message message was essentially “Hey, look! Even the MoD believes in global warming. It must be true”. I think that particular article was aimed chiefly at the armed-forces vote, including government ministers who are seen as strong MoD supporters.
    Curiously, about the same time, I read [elsewhere, of course] that the Meteorological Office had lost a significant source of funding from the army/MoD. I wonder if the timing was coincidental?

    00

  • #
    MangoChutney

    Blacks latest is on Rio+20 and references the Earth System Governance Project, which, as the name implies, is all about global governance

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17381730

    I find it distasteful that a BBC employee should use a once great institution to push for global governance.

    Who actually wants global governance and why did nobody ask me if it’s what I want?

    00