BBC MINDSET IN TECHNICOLOR…

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.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to BBC MINDSET IN TECHNICOLOR…

  1. Martin says:

    Richard Black is an obnoxious tool anyway. Again he like Harrabin spouts the unproven statement that the emails from the CRU were stolen. Perhaps Black is now an expert in crime?

    No one denies that the climate is changing, it always has done it always will do. What is in dispute is the level to which human produced CO2 is responsible. That is a legitimate point of view. The other legitimate view is If humans are mostly responsible, is there anything that can be done to stop it getting worse or is it better to simply adapt (as humans have always done with previous climate change events)

    The BBC and the warmists of course don’t want to have that debate, they want to achieve their real aim which is to restrict owning a car and flying to the wealthy (that includes THEM by the way) whilst the proles (that’s US by the way) have to slum it in Skegness every year and go everywhere by third rate public transport.

    I’d happily challenge Richard Black to a Carbon contest. I bet my Carbon footprint is far lower than his, I’d also happily challenge Black to put his money where his mouth is, I’ll burn my passport if he agrees to do the same to his.

    I await his response.

       0 likes

    • AndyUk06 says:

      I think that hits the nail on the head as to how to deal with Black, Harrabin et al, and that is to invite them to put their money where they’re mouths are. 

      For all their noble words, these BBC people are wedded to rank materialism as much as anybody.  They have no intention of doing unto themselves what they expect others to do unto themselves.

      Rather than these pointless mind-fucking sessions held at Oxford University, simply ask them ‘Do you drive?’, ‘Do you fly’, ‘Do you use a dish washer’, etc, and ‘When are you going to stop doing these things?’

         0 likes

  2. John Horne Tooke says:

    “The problem is poor science awareness.”

    I agree – by people at the BBC. It is Harrabin and his collegues that need to gain some science awareness not the “sceptics”
    Any other hypothesis that had so many holes in it as AGW would have been buried long ago if was based on science.

       0 likes

  3. Phil says:

    The BBC should stick to what it is good at – trash like Eastenders.

    Poor science awareness is a characteristic of the BBC. We all remember carbon dioxide on a  BBC national news graphic being represented by the 2 above the O as in O squared.

       0 likes

  4. Cassandra King says:

    In typical Marxist/leftist style, if the masses stop buying the trash lies and propaganda it must be the masses are too stupid and selfish misguided and mentally ill and led astray by anti social elements.

    The BBC led by plastic Marxists their heads filled with half understood cod Marxist theory, the worlds most anti human evil ideology responsible for more deaths than all the other beliefs in history.
    The pathetic Black unable to distinguish between the simplest scientific theories and political ideologies must actually believe that science and Marxist doctrine are somehow identical when Marxism and true scientific endeavour are alien to each other as nothing else.

    The political theory and fraud behind AGW is falling apart and with it the BBCs reputation/pension investments, Black is heading for oblivion and he is not happy, as with all liars he is lying to himself as he blames everyone else for his own stupidity.

       0 likes

  5. Guest says:

    I was surprised to learn that ‘deniers’ was a term created from within the sceptical community. Few who have questioning natures and challenge the dogmatic orthodoxy of AGW that I have seen or heard seem to appreciate its accuracy or enjoy its connotations.

    And the overall tone that ‘it’s settled, but we’re just not getting it across to the thickos as well as we might, so a good disaster is required’ was bizarre. Mr. Crichton could have written a book about it… oh.

    Yet again, I was left wondering… ‘who put these nitwits in charge?’

    They are self-selecting, all pervasive yet totally unpersuasive. But seem to crop up and get airtime or column inches daily.

    And none seem to have the slightest hint that their credibility as objective reporters of what is a very important, highly complex issue was shot yonks go.

    I presume they all be flying off soon to some far flung conference to get a top up from like-minded folk from around the world?

       0 likes

  6. ltwf1964 says:

    a new name for warmists is needed as well

    sheisters,con-men and lying b……..s

       0 likes

  7. Katabasis says:

    A bit o/t but something worth following up on this blog perhaps:

    It looks like the BBC has removed the ability to ‘recommend’ comments on Have Your Say. This will make it easier for the BBC, and people reading, to ignore comments the BBC doesn’t like – there’s now no way of ‘taking a pulse’.

       0 likes