YOU CAN’T KEEP A GOOD MAN DOWN

 

 

And it seems you can’t keep Richard Black down either….I think we need a reminder of just how bad he was….and how ineffective the BBC is at policing what its own journalists get up to.

 

 
“It’s politics, not science,” Richard Muller told me by phone. “Politicians have been doing this kind of stuff for a long time – look at what Al Gore did with all his disinformation.
“Some start with their conclusion and they pick the data to find what they want. People should listen to scientists, not politicians or journalists.”

 

Certainly not ‘journalists’ like Richard Black….unfortunately others disagree:

As many have commented on here, Richard Black has resurfaced as the Director of Communications for the grandly titled ‘Global Ocean Commission’….launching today officially, with David Miliband being first out of the blocks with an interview on Today (08:20) ….Black was way ahead by pushing his new boss’s thoughts last week.
Richard Black ?@enviroblack
Political leaders need to catch up with business on #ocean issues, says @figuerescr http://www.efeverde.com/content/view/full/154760

It seems the GOC is where the men that once showed promise go to resurrect their careers.

A couple of questions….who funds the GOC and who exactly voted for them?   A ‘Commission’?  Who commissioned them?  What’s their authority?  They are essentially just a very well connected pressure group which undoubtedly will prove highly influential merely by virtue of being who they are.

One partner…and presumably funder, is the Pew Environment Group…an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts.
The Pew Charitable Trust has total assets of over $5.3 billion…it spent a total of nearly $341 million last year…..on a variety of projects not just the environment.

Just thought it was worth mentioning that when Black and Co are always so eager to try and discredit sceptics by saying that ‘deniers’ are backed by enormous corporations….never mind that  massive charities, NGOs and pressure groups, not to mention the oil companies now,  back the global warming agenda with large wads of hard cash….as well as government funding of course.

That aside it is quite extraordinary that the GOC would employ Black…after all he has just about zero credibility, certainly with those who value the truth….even amongst the true believers there cannot be many who don’t raise a cynical smile when they hear Black’s name.

It was long apparent that the BBC’s Black was not a journalist but an out and out advocate for man made global warming theories….an advocate who was prepared to mislead readers and malign sceptics, happy to boldly misstate facts, ignore highly relevant  information that contradicted his narrative and use his position at the BBC to discredit  sceptics and make vast rambling attempts to disprove their criticisms…..so long and involved you had to believe this was a deliberate ploy to stop anyone actually doing their own research and checking what he himself claimed.

Here is a classic example of Black’s misrepresentation of what is happening in order to ‘prove’ his supposed point:

‘The original “hide the decline” claim is one of the most easily de-bunked in the entire pantheon of easily-debunkable “sceptic” claims.
Phil Jones wrote the email in 1999, immediately following what still ranks as one of the hottest years on record, and well before the idea of a “slowdown” or “hiatus” or even “decline” in warming gained currency.
So it can’t have had anything to do with hiding a global temperature decline.
If it were a scientific idea, the notion that it did would be consigned to the garbage bin of history alongside perpetual motion machines, the steady-state theory of the cosmos and the idea of HIV/Aids as a gay-only disease.

It’s that wrong.’

As Bishop Hill shows (see below) the sceptics did not make that claim about that particular  ‘hide the decline’ phrase….but the emails and later statements do show that Jones et al were prepared to hide the decline in global warming and other inconvenient information:

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Johns <tim.johns@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, “Folland, Chris” <chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Mon Jan 5 16:18:xxx xxxx xxxx
Tim, Chris,
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting
till about 2020.

 

Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

 

Phil Jones, director of the CRU, writing to Michael Mann, creator (le mot juste) of the now discredited “hockey stick” graph, about two academics who disagree with him:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Professor Mann on an academic journal foolish enough to publish dissenting views:
“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
Professor Jones’s reply:
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
And you’ll be glad to hear they did!

 

Here is what Richard Muller, the supposed ‘sceptic AGW convert’ thought of the UEA‘s CRU crew:
What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their licence.” ‘

 

So there you go…not only did Black misrepresent what sceptics said but he also sidestepped what Jones and Co were really doing….which was, em,  ‘hiding the decline’.

 

Here Bishop Hill examines and debunks in detail Black’s claim:

I’m struggling to put an innocent gloss on Black’s misrepresentation of what the allegation was. I can remember Sarah Palin making this claim a couple of days after the story broke, but did anyone make such an allegation to any of the inquiries? Perhaps readers could see how many people made the allegation as framed by Black and how many got it right – i.e that it was about hiding the divergence between instrumental temperatures and some proxy records.
The misrepresentation seems very blatant to me.
Update on Nov 2, 2011 by Bishop Hill
I’d also posted an update – something along these lines.
Richard Black responded:
Re ‘hide the decline’… yes, the Jones email concerned reconciling the tree ring record. But that’s not how it was interpreted – at least by some – which is my point. Read Fred Pearce The Climate Files.
Pearce cites Sarah Palin and Senator Inhofe. What Black seems to have done therefore is to find the least informed commenters he can lay his hands on and then say “one of the most easily de-bunked in the entire pantheon of easily-debunkable “sceptic” claims”
One can draw one’s conclusions about his journalistic standards accordingly.
Update on Nov 2, 2011 by Bishop Hill
Steve McIntyre has now added his thoughts in the comments:
Black’s article is especially misleading because David Rose, the author of the recent Mail article on Muller (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html ) had a very precise and accurate understanding of “hide the decline”, which he published in a Dec 2009 Mail article here
( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html ).
Rose’s original article on Hide the Decline showed that IPCC had deleted the adverse portion of the Briffa reconstruction. The Climategate emails showed that this had been done intentionally so as not to “dilute the message” or “give fodder” to skeptics.

 

Black is clearly not impartial and aims all his effort at proving that global warming is happening and is caused by man… that sceptics are funded by evil corporations and are in some way mentally scarred and damaged individuals with no scientific qualifications…err…much like himself…. having no scientific quals.

 

 

Why is Richard Muller mentioned here?…because he was the man who claimed to have been a sceptic but became a believer…but the real truth was that he was never a sceptic….The BBC, probably Black, leapt on his ‘conversion’ as proof that AGW is real…even ‘expert’ sceptics renounce their scepticism in the face of the facts……

Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans

A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures.
In a US newspaper opinion piece, Prof Richard Muller says: “Call me a converted sceptic.”
Prof Muller describes his own change in standpoint as “a total turnaround”.

A quick look on Google would have revealed this:
Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.

 

Muller also set up the Berkeley Earth Project which measured surface temperatures around the Earth and  the results of which Black defended rigorously. in ‘Hide the Decline’

When looking at the results of that project, that temperatures are rising as a result of man made influences,  you might bare in mind that Muller, and his daughter run ‘Muller & Associates’...providing ‘Impartial Energy Expertise’

Muller is President and Chief Scientist of Muller & Associates, an international consulting group specializing in energy-related issues.
We know that in order to be effective, solutions must be sustainable
Power and Energy, Climate Change, Profitable Sustainability

Executive Leadership
Richard Muller, President and Chief Scientist
Elizabeth Muller, CEO

 

 

Naked Copenhagen
The numbers behind the OpEd
Richard A Muller

Conclusion
These scenarios suggest that even if the IPCC climate models are accurate, the Kyoto/Copenhagen approach (developed countries cut now; developing countries follow eventually) will not work.

What would work? The only clear hope would be a massive effort into making the energy use of the developing economies cleaner (more solar, wind, and nuclear) and more efficient. How can one achieve this? I suspect it would require much more intrusive cooperation between the developed world and the emerging one.

“If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.” – Richard Muller, 2008

Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to YOU CAN’T KEEP A GOOD MAN DOWN

  1. john in cheshire says:

    Alan, I’m pleased to see that you are keeping the global warming scandle alive because, as a subject it appears to be quietly falling off the radar. The alarmists, hysterics, liars,propagandists, and destroyers of good, decent people’s reputations and livlihoods are still in positions of influence, still dissembling, still bleeding the taxpayer of precious money.

       29 likes

    • Alan says:

      A lot on climate recently but it is relentless from the BBC and literally a world changing subject….as Paul Ehrlich, the newly elected fellow of the Royal Society, said: ‘….The terrible thing that we are going to have to do which is to somehow redistribute access to resources away the rich to the poor. ‘

      In that one sentence is the end of your lifestyle, your culture, your society….and of all those in all developed countries….and you haven’t had a single say in the decisions being made that are going to destroy your life….if the Greens get what they want.

      The BBC is out to silence critics of that plot whilst at the same time bombards us relentlessly with green propaganda to reinforce their own message.

      It is big. One of the biggest political ‘fixes’ in history….but so far little notice of the real consequences has been taken of this by people with any influence.

      The BBC are involved in a revolution….smashing industry and people’s lives…..they colluded with Labour to hide the extent and savage effects of mass immigration and now collude with government to ‘persuade’ the British population to accept AGW and the drastic measures they want to introduce to combat it.

      The ‘independent’ BBC is no more than an arm of government propaganda…..which means that to stop it you cannot rely on government regulation or enforcement.

      The BBC has gambled its existence on CO2 being the cause of global warming…if that proves to be wrong the BBC is finished….hence it can no longer afford to be ‘wrong’….even if it is.

         24 likes

      • Richard Pinder says:

        As an Astronomer, I think the last two years has produced all the answers to the causes of Warming and Cooling. The debate about temperatures such as the Hockey Stick graph, does not touch on the causes of temperature changes, which Astronomy does. Not just Solar Irradiance but also the fact that the Earth is the neighbour of two planets with carbon dioxide atmospheres which can and have been successfully used to calibrate carbon dioxide warming on the Earth, as far too small to be of any significance.

        Astronomers have had an advantage over climatologists in the fact that we have more planetary atmospheres to work with and to produce a theory that explains the temperatures in all parts of all the planetary atmospheres in the solar system, including that of the Earth. So I wish that the debate could swing towards the atmospheric physics in the Unified Theory of Climate.

        I think this is the golden bullet that would destroy the BBC. I understand that journalists and editors are afraid to give any say to the relevant scientists and that the response in astronomy is talk of astronomers having to start doing their own journalism in newsletters. Astronomers have the privilege of not having any links to either oil companies or the environmental movement, so we do not have the millions of pounds necessary for us to post these newsletters to the nation.

           4 likes

  2. john in cheshire says:

    Apologies for typos.

       2 likes

  3. london calling says:

    They lie, they smear, they lie about lieing, they wriggle and wriggle… Nursery rhyme: I know an old lady who swallowed a lie, perhaps she’ll die
    It is all about Exchequers getting in more money to cover up their overspending through envirnmental and health taxes – the taxes you have to pay “for your own good, and that of the planet, and future non-existing generations” Warming/CO2 tosh is disproven totally and incontrovertibly, but they will carry on as if nothing had happened. They want more of your money but they don’t want to have to face you at the ballot box on why.

    Bastards.
    Yes, you Cameron and Osborne, and all your miserable apparachniks at DECC, DFID and DEFRA. Never mind horsemeat, because of you, we are forced to eat horseshit.

       30 likes

  4. lojolondon says:

    Maybe you can’t keep a good man down. But remember shit floats!

       11 likes

  5. JimS says:

    Well the Global Ocean Commission’s domain name is cetainly registered via Pew.

    Domain ID:D161204816-LROR
    Domain Name:GLOBALOCEANCOMMISSION.ORG
    Created On:14-Jan-2011 18:52:16 UTC
    Last Updated On:16-Dec-2012 10:14:25 UTC
    Expiration Date:14-Jan-2014 18:52:16 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
    Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
    Registrant ID:F6A6686F29EC520A
    Registrant Name:Anthony Vitelli
    Registrant Organization:The Pew Charitable Trusts
    Registrant Street1:2005 Market St.
    Registrant Street2:
    Registrant Street3:
    Registrant City:Philadelphia
    Registrant State/Province:PA
    Registrant Postal Code:19103
    Registrant Country:US
    Registrant Phone:+1.2025406754
    Registrant Phone Ext.:
    Registrant FAX:+1.2025406754
    Registrant FAX Ext.:
    Registrant Email:networkandsystems@pewtrusts.org

       6 likes

  6. AsISeeIt says:

    Global Ocean Commission ‘partners’ ie funding organisations…

    http://www.globaloceancommission.org/about-the-commission/partners/

    Pew Environment Group
    Somerville College (Oxford)
    Adessium Foundation (the Dutch connection)
    Oceans 5 (I kid you not. Must a prequel to Oceans 11)

    I smell something very fishy about the Global Ocean Commission – but it would take an Inspector Morse and Lewis combo to get to the bottom of the scam.

       19 likes

  7. AsISeeIt says:

    And this is a small example of how these climate change alarmists operate….

    Global Ocean Commission have a section on their web site titled Climate Change

    No ifs, no buts, Climate Change.

    “Already, rising water temperatures are pushing many fish stocks towards higher latitudes1”

    http://www.globaloceancommission.org/issues/climate-change/

    Gosh that’s a worry.

    OK let’s have a look at ref 1

    http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/7/1570.full

    But read through this paper. It doesn’t provide proofs of Climate Change. It is a ‘what will be the effects if….’ paper.

    “Environmental variables and oceanographic features that are relevant to fish and that are likely to be affected by climate change are reviewed. ”

    “This study was carried out as part of the European Union FP6 project RECLAIM (Contract 044133).”

    So you make a bold statement of alarmist fact. You reference some scientific paper funded by the EU that asked scientists to explore what would be the effects if there were global warming…. and Bob’s yer uncle, Ed’s yer brother and Dick’s yer ex-BBC mate.

       16 likes

  8. openyoureyes says:

       2 likes

  9. SteveB says:

    With David Miliband on board, how can they possibly fail ? /sarc

       6 likes

  10. AsISeeIt says:

    David Miliband will no doubt introduce us to the graph that proves global warming – the banana skin graph.

       4 likes

  11. london calling says:

    Where does the money come from? Always the right question.
    The Pew Charitable Trusts, an independent nonprofit, is the sole beneficiary of seven individual charitable funds established between 1948 and 1979 by two sons and two daughters of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew.

    Sun Oil Company – yes, unbelievably, Richard Black is now funded by Big Oil.

       7 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      ‘Richard Black is now funded by Big Oil.’
      Does Monbiot know?

         1 likes

    • Guest Who says:

      Or Hickman?
      Though I think he may have been called in to explain his last foray into things best left unmentioned by the editors of his truthiness publication.

         1 likes

  12. johnnythefish says:

    Excellent research and well summarised, Alan.

    There is nothing ambiguous, as far as I can see, about the statement ‘hide the decline’, whatever it is being applied to.

    For a comprehensive analysis of the Climategate e-mails, see here (pdf document – start of the ‘hide the decline’ controversy starts p11):

    Click to access climategate-emails.pdf

    On a broader note, the link between the AGW activists and UN Agenda 21 (the blueprint for a totalitarian world eco-socialist government) is still little understood by most people. It’s about time those parts of the media that seriously value democracy got a grip and started to bring it to people’s attention – it’s potentially the biggest political issue we are all facing. Given the influence Black was able to exert through his broadcasts, it is a huge stretch of the imagination to believe the BBC weren’t aware of his thinly-disguised promotion of the UN agenda, let alone them being fully behind it (as their continuing unscientific bias demonstrates, in my opinion).

       2 likes

  13. moonrakin says:

    I see nobody’s picked up on it – so – from the comments at BH

    http://www.pewtrusts.org/experts_profile.aspx?id=85899368627

    http://www.pewenvironment.org/about-us/experts/meet-the-experts/uta-bellion-8589934609

    Perhaps they should re-brand as PewPeace?

       0 likes

  14. moonrakin says:

    or GreenPew

       0 likes

  15. I’m impressed, I must say. Certainly rarely do I encounter a blog that’s both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you might have hit the nail on the head. Your thought is outstanding; the issue is some thing that not sufficient men and women are speaking intelligently about. I’m extremely happy that I stumbled across this in my search for something relating to this.

    new christian louboutin

    http://christianlouboutincoolsa.0fees.net

       0 likes