BLACK INCOMPETENCE

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.

Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to BLACK INCOMPETENCE

  1. Mailman says:

    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

       0 likes

  2. My Site (click to edit) says:

    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.

       0 likes

  3. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Thanks for this, Robin.

       0 likes

  4. Chuffer says:

    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/

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      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.

         0 likes

    • jazznick says:

      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:-

      Media teleconference information: This release is the subject of a media
      teleconference at the current meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s
      Solar Physics Division (AAS/SPD). The telecon will be held at 11 a.m. MDT
      (17:00 UTC) on Tuesday, 14 June. Bona fide journalists are invited to attend
      the teleconference and should send an e-mail to the AAS/SPD press officer,
      Craig DeForest, at [email protected], with the subject heading “SPD:
      SOLAR MEDIA TELECON”, before 16:00 UTC. You will receive dial-in information
      before the telecon.
      
      Now - wouldn't a real science journalist lick his/her lips at a chance to participate in this
      telecon ???
      Just shows we don't have any !!!

         0 likes

  5. jazznick says:

    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.

       0 likes

    • Roland Deschain says:

      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.

         0 likes

  6. Cassandra King says:

    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?

       0 likes

    • cjhartnett says:

      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!

         0 likes

  7. John Anderson says:

    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.

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      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.

         0 likes

  8. John Horne Tooke says:

    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!!!

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Right, this calls for an immediate summit at a five-star resort someplace far away.  Who’s with me, comrades?

         0 likes

      • NotaSheep says:

        Nice is nice at this time of year and so handy for Monte Carlo.

           0 likes

        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          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.

             0 likes

          • NotaSheep says:

            Is the weather not breaking in Cabo in mid to late June? How about Gibraltar; that would really annoy BBC and EU.

               0 likes

        • John Anderson says:

          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 :

             0 likes

  9. Janis Vanags says:

    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.

       0 likes

  10. Ragbag says:

    More likely to be licking his windows than his boots!

       0 likes

  11. Lawrence Jenkins says:

    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.

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      Excellent – welcome !

         0 likes

    • Natsman says:

      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…)

         0 likes

      • Lawrence Jenkins says:

        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.

           0 likes

  12. Ben says:

    I’ve noticed that Black no longer allows comments on his work.

       0 likes

  13. Roland Deschain says:

    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”.

       0 likes

    • Natsman says:

      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…

         0 likes

    • Abandon Ship! says:

      “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.

         0 likes

      • Natsman says:

        Does anyone?

           0 likes

      • Roland Deschain says:

        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.

           0 likes

        • Cassandra King says:

          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?

             0 likes

  14. ltwf1964 says:

    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.

       0 likes