Last week, I noted that Richard Black had sunk into blatant advocacy – again – in his obscenely hasty support for the fanatical Phil Jones’ claims that global warming has been proved (again) by his crooked statistics. Now David Whitehouse, a former BBC correspondent who, unlike Richard Black does have science qualifications, has waded into the debate. In a masterclass of accurate reporting and reporting technique, he agrees with me that Mr Black’s so-called journalism in this instance is nothing but warped advocacy, and this is what he concludes:
It is a sloppy, skimpy article in the extreme. It provides little in the way of analysis and that which it does is one-sided. But even if one did not look at the accuracy of the statements it has, not for the first time, an air of triumph, as if those whom it deems skeptic (and it has a strange definition of skeptic) have been overcome. It is not impartial.
In its selective coverage of climate change science BBC News has become not a reporter of climate change, but a supporter of it. It has, as this regrettable article shows, veered into advocacy. Science and Environmental journalists are often enthusiasts for the subject but as reporters they must not become cheerleaders and uncritically use shoddy science in a one-sided attempt to trounce those whom, as is obvious from this piece, the reporter thinks are wrong. There is no mention in the article that the statistics for the post-2001 temperature standstill are accepted by the scientific community. This changes the story completely.
I recommend you to read the whole thing. Not so long ago, the BBC could attract reporters of his class and pedigree; now they have only agitprop lefties. Once again, it is clear beyond doubt that Mr Black is nothing but a warmist zealot. Not only that, he’s not fit to lick David Whitehouse’s boots.
Dare I say it but reporters of his class are no longer required at the BBC because that would mean that reporters would start to question the items they are being asked to cover.
It is far easier to surround yourself with people similar to yourself, hence why we see so many so called reporters in teh same ilk as Black and co!
Mailman
Not sure what the going rate for a market rate talent is chez Aunty these days, but one presumes it’s peanuts going by the calibre of content creator being funded these days.
Must go and check who is doing this funding, in what basis, and why.
Thanks for this, Robin.
Any sign of BBC covering the news about the upcoming repeat of the Maunder Minimum – and its effect on global climate?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/the-major-aas-solar-announcement-suns-fading-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/
Excellent point, Chuffer. I’ve been reading about this for months now. I’m sure intrepid BBC Science correspondents won’t be interested in such heresy.
Chuffer
I totally agree, you show the WUWT link to the item but there was an opportunity for proper journalists to pick up on this story here
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/SPD_solar_cycle_release.txt
At the foot of this media release was the following:-
Sorry about format problem above – glitch during posting.
Upshot is that Black or any other journo was invited to participate in a teleconference.
It would appear that none bothered to take up the offer.
This is the state of the MSM in the UK – info on a plate but prefer the handouts that come from WWF & Greenpeace.
It may be that some took part, but that it goes against the Narrative and must therefore be ignored in the hope it goes away.
Right now there’s probably a meeting at the BBC to decide how to spin this as irrelevant, if they’re forced to acknowledge it. We’ve seen it before.
The BBC employed non scientists for a very good reason, reporters with a background in science are a risk to the political narrative whereas a person who is ignorant of science will report exactly what he is told no questions asked no matter how dishonest.
A BBC science reporters only skill needs to be obedience, a stooge who would be at home on lets say radio Moscow circa 1975, he puts his name to lies and deceptions because that is his job, he knows nothing of the science, of the scientific method and cares even less. The political narrative is supreme, the alliance between ecofascist greenshirt political activism is all that matters, they provide ALL the ‘science’ and Mr cut’N’paste copies it no questions asked and in return the beeboid scumbag is paid off via the successor to the old brown envelope, he gets speaking engagements and paid for jollys etc.
All in all a nice little earner for him and sod the truth, sod the viewer/listener and the trust they place in him, lies are profitable so who cares about the truth? The truth never brought anyone any backhanders did it?
Well said Cassandra.
The likes of Harrabin and Black are just the kind of empty vessels primed for filling with melting glaciers or penguins tiny tears!
Maybe the BBC could be made to release the qualifications for their correspondents right to “analyse” any science, technology, Israeli news.
Maybe that hideous bluestocking who dared to question Peter Hitchens credentials to speak on foreign aid(Question Time, last week) could apply her Prep Schools insight into all this on behalf of we the ever so `umble oiks!
In any news organisation that took pride in accurate reporting, the damning article by its own former Science Correspondent would trigger serious examination by senior editorial staff. With a view to either defending Black – or correcting Black and asking him to act professionally on these issues by checking and cross-checking.
But the arrogance that pervades the BBC probably means that Black’s article will not be reviewed properly.
Indeed the whole record of Black’s shameless pimping of warmist press releases ought to be examined by senior BBC news managers. And as a touchstone to his “accuracy and scientific nous, I’d suggest that they should trawl back a year or so on this site and read the many detailed critiques posted here by Robin Horbury.
“Truth’s a chiel that winnae die…..”
Any competent editor could see through all Black’s blustering BS in an afternoon’s close reading.
Ice cream causes more CO2 to be generated. Fact. I am not going to tell you how I came to that conclusion, I’m not going to let anyone see my data and the methodolgy used is not open to the public.
I am right – no argument now act on it!!!
Right, this calls for an immediate summit at a five-star resort someplace far away. Who’s with me, comrades?
Nice is nice at this time of year and so handy for Monte Carlo.
That’s much too close for all the EU mandarins and BBC staff. I was thinking more like the Hilton at Cabo San Lucas. Good facilities, great beach, and the sushi bar at the second pool does these very amusing Mexican-style maki.
Is the weather not breaking in Cabo in mid to late June? How about Gibraltar; that would really annoy BBC and EU.
No – far better to go to the Maldives, or an island in the South Pacific, to check out on all the dead coral and rising sea levels.
I know this place on the Blue Lagoon is lovely – but maybe to cheap ?
http://www.oarsmansbay.com/
So maybe the nearby exclusive Turtle Island ? Only $1200 a night
http://www.turtlefiji.com/Contact-Us/Media-Gallery/Video-Gallery
……………………..
Or maybe the Cook Islands ? They have hurricanes there, obviously caused by AGW :
As a so called ‘denier’ by these alarmists I’m surprised that they have not been given the label of ‘deceiver’ which seems to me to be the most apt description for them.
More likely to be licking his windows than his boots!
Hello all first post I believe:
I would just like to reiterate some of the comments remarking off lack of coverage by the BBC science team of the recent NASA block busting news concerning the sun going into a deep slumber. So far I’ve found no reference to this on the BBC or the meteorological office. Both (almost) state owned organisations find it difficult to comment on any topic that may speak off global cooling unless they run it by their political officers on duty at the time. I mean even Yahoo covers the “science story of the century”. Mind you now if there was a sniff of a hint that future global cooling could be caused by America, Israel or England -then blimey we’d have a tsunami of articles. But no its the sun that did it and that just doesn’t fit their self loathing agenda. Okay thanks got that of me chest until I watch Question time, News Night or Radio 4 again.
Excellent – welcome !
Hello, Lawrence – a veteran of uk.sci.weather, I believe?
Welcome, mate you are amongst friends – there’s no Dullish around here (he knows what I mean…)
That’s the one Natsman-you could say ther’s never a dullish moment around here and thank god for that, However Exciting and rather worrying developments in climate lately. I realise this site is about BBC bias but that other state funded (paid by taxes) once wonderful institution the united kingdom meteoroligical office AKA UKMO are now interchangable with the BBc in matters of AGW. I can see a whole future of satisfying rants on this website. Wait until the BBC covers yet again the poor and disadvantaged.
I’ve noticed that Black no longer allows comments on his work.
‘Black no longer allows comments on his work’
Not sure that is quite correct.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13756853
It is however certainly the case that many BBC reporters are moving more and more to broadcast-only mode, even with in-theory ‘interactive’ blogs.
Nick Robinson’s recent body of work is telling –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13787033 – Labour pre-press release (What he ‘will say’)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13775399 – Open for comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13766305 – Labour puff piece – closed for comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13747233 – Closed early
When I refer to ‘closed early’, in too many cases we’re talking a policy of ensuring no one who works a normal day has any chance of commenting.
The BBC has pretty much decided to deny most licence fee payers the right to engage.
Beyond this, and modding, there’s also the technique Mr. Black christened ‘watertight oversight’, whereby if the news really is inconvenient then the BBC simply shuts down until it passes.
Who at BC should we write to to ask why this sunspot news has not been reported?
Try the “Man (Mann?) inthe Moon”.
He’s probably more likely to take you seriously.
That would probably be our Helen.
Not sure it will get you very far.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/helen-boaden-from-little-britain-to-big-news-486852.html
‘Miss Helen Boaden, the director of BBC News, has no regrets. Absolutely none. Not a single trace. She shrugs off with gusto recent criticism of the BBC…’
She is also quoted in the Indy as being quite proud of having an email address for complaints that ‘changes’.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-tossers-who-could-win-for-the-tories-425799.html
Unique.
Ah, the lack of sunspot activity was finally mentioned on Today this morning, in the 8:00 headlines.
With a piece from Harrabin about how “projected global warming is 3-9 times stronger than the expected cooling effect, so the problem for governments is persuading everyone to reduce their CO2 emissions”.
As expected. They’ve decided it can’t be sat on any longer and come up with the “line to take”.
So, what he’s saying is the sun may, er, possibly be inconveniently misbehaving, but not to worry, all those tiny parts in a million of man-produced CO2 will have a much, much greater effect than that silly old sun, and anyway, it won’t be misbehaving for long before it’s sent to the naughty step, and the world recommences its quest to emulate oven regulo 6, courtesy of us hideous, nasty human beings with our power stations and 4x4s.
That nice Mr. Harrabin, he knows everything, and can be relied upon to tweak the truth to suit his own (and his masters’) agenda.
Stupid prat. It’ll be interesting to see a poll of those who doubt AGW in a week or two when this becomes common knowledge.
Mind you, we are dealing with the British public, so perhaps not…
“3-9 times stronger”
Anybody know where this comes from or how reliable it is? I wonder what the Confidence Intervals will be, or whether there is any statistical basis for this pronouncement of faith and doctrine from the good Archbishop of the Church of AGW?
Might be worth checking as I don’t trust Archbishop Harrabin one inch.
Does anyone?
I don’t recall that Harrabin said where the “3-9” statistic came from, but you can be sure he’s parroted it from a friendly source. He doesn’t have the expertise to have calculated it himself or the brains to question its accuracy.
Its obviously a made up figure isnt it?
3 o 9? That narrows it right down then eh? If a solar minimum reduces global temperatures by 1.5c are they saying that CAGW would increase global temperatures by up to 9 times that.
They have a saying where I come from
LYING TWAT =-O
So the beeboids wait until they have fabricated a cover story, warming from a trace gas will be more powerful than a solar minimum cooling will it?
I think Romans 1:25 describes the greenie deceivers perfectly-
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.