Bishop Hill has an interesting post which reveals yet again the hardcore pro-climate change mindset at the BBC. The post is about a public discussion about the impact of Climategate, held at Oxford University on February 26 between environment journalists Richard Black (BBC), Fiona Harvey (FT), Ben Jackson(Sun) and David Adam(Guardian). Richard Black made relatively few contributions, but his first was this:
I’m not surprised at the level of UK scepticism as the main impacts of climate change 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.
Our man Black also made a contribution to the Q and A session at the end:
Q: I’m disturbed by the panel’s attitude. Scepticism is legitimate, denialism not. The events shouldn’t be called anything-Gate as that implied conspiracy and there was none. Why haven’t the media found out who stole the emails and wasn’t the timing of their release interesting?
DA: We can no longer call people deniers. We need a new term. Some people have suggested “climate creationists”.
FH: Sceptics were clever in choosing their name. We do need a new name, denier won’t work because of Holocaust associations.
Q: What was the influence of the blogosphere?
RB: probably bad.
FH: I’m astonished by the viciousness of anonymous people on the internet.
And there we have it. The BBC’s intrepid climate guru feels that the fact that the blogsphere exposed the lies of Climategate was a “bad” influence. His other answer betrayed starkly that he thinks that people don’t believe his constant propaganda because the impact of climate change is 30 years away. Oh, and if they are educated properly about “science”, they will start to believe climate change lies; that is to say, his audience are dumbos who need educating. That’s the BBC mindset, in glowing Technicolor.