Richard Black has plumbed new depths of partisanship. Here, with vicious claws out and fists flying, he sneeringly attacks the Heartland Institute, an organisation which on meagre resources, bravely tries to take on the climate lobby. For Mr Black – and no doubt the full complement of his cheering BBC eco-nut chums – they belong to a most vile category of existence – they are”of overtly libertarian bent”. Their crime? Some emails suggesting that the Institute tries to raise modest amounts of money to fund its activities have fallen into his greenie chums’ hands. Actually, one of them might be a fake, and there’s a strong suggestion that they were obtained by stealth, if not illegally. But for Mr Black all that’s irrelevant – it’s a cue to parade all of his greenie bile and to make it sound as if the Institute is a criminal gang for daring to suggest that there might be opposition to his views. I love especially his phrasing of this:

It’s probably most notable (or notorious) for holding an annual “climate-sceptic” conference in Washington DC.

This is spiteful, nasty name-calling journalism at its very worst, and he even venomously head-butts the mild Anthony Watts, whose What’s Up With That? website bends over backwards to be decent to everyone in the climate debate arena, including Mr Black.

For the record, Mr Black, and to put things in perspective, these emails show that the Heartland Institute clearly struggles to raise a few million dollars to fund its activities. This was reported sensationally in yesterday’s Guardian, and that, naturally, was enough for you and your genuflecting BBC acolytes to frame this unpleasant, hysterical invective.

By contrast – something Mr Black chooses not to mention – the warmist lobby, according to Jo Nova, has received tens of billions of dollars in the last twenty years, and in short, is funded by jacuzzis-full of government and vested-interest cash, not to mention supported by blizzards of BBC propaganda. The Heartland Institute should be regarded as heroes for fighting against such odds. But for Mr Black that’s all the pretext he needs to start the most unplesant of bare-knuckle fights.

Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to HEART-WRENCHING…

  1. Natsman says:

    Richard Black?  Of the BBC?  Calling “foul”?
    Surely not – look to yourself, Black, your ideology and your heart are both as black as your name (with, of course, a large tinge of green).


  2. matthew rowe says:

    Black is a pathetic hypocrite and moron he ignores the thousands of e-mails he doesn’t like you know  the bad naughty ‘stolen ‘ ones that show him up to be a sock puppet for a PR man  and self abuses himself  over a couple of ‘leaked ‘ that show how a group he hates [coz Wardy told him to hate them! ] is fund-raising to try to question the ‘consensus’ that black lorded  but now denies  !
    I hope the useful fool gets everything he deserves in triplicate and from a great height !


  3. Dogstar060763 says:

    The pragmaticst in me suggests that us skeptics just take this on the chin. The Heartlands Institute might want to protest that the documents in question were ‘stolen’, but the fact is that the information is now in the public domain and, of course, climate zealots will lap it up and claim this affair as their retribution for ‘climategate’.

    So since we can’t deny THI does indeed appear to recieve £multi-million grants from a variety of skeptical donors, including fossil fuel and tobacco companies, let’s not bury our heads in the sand and pretend none of it is true. The likes of the BBC’s reptillian Mr Black slithering about making mischief on the back of this news, whilst unedifying and obliquely partisan, makes little difference if we are honest enough to face him and his peers down with complete openess and transparency.

    There will be moments like this for the skeptical movement – and there will probably be many more – as an embattled, cornered proAGW movement begins to fight back against the public’s growing distrust of its wretched ‘settled science’, using whatever means necessary to get it’s febrile message out there. As skeptics who perhaps appreciated the release of the climategate emails we can hardly complain when our own tactics of subterfuge and skullduggery are turned and used against us.

    It is no surprise, of course, that the BBC should quite literally waste no time at all in reporting this incident, a fact that just serves to underline their blatant bias in climate reporting. Where was the headline story on the BBC when some time ago Jo Nova revealed, in great detail, how proAGW funding (i.e. government, taxpayer-funded monies) overshadows skeptical (private donor) funding by some $3000 to 1?

    That’s right; it wasn’t there at all. And it still isn’t, because you won’t see Mr Black mention it in any of his ‘news’ stories. As long as we can remember underlying truths like this, facts that expose the hypocrisy and shabby journalism in the BBC’s climate coverage, we can’t be too disturbed when climate zealots start hurling accusations around. Let’s be big enough to take the punches. The fight goes on, regardless.


  4. Span Ows says:

    I was fighting this fight yesterday at the DT(ironically on  ablog about the bBBc! http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100137360/the-bbc-is-killing-britains-recovery/#disqus_thread 

    Some warmist kept posting the link to desmogblog’s release of this news. It is complete pants as the comments under BBC Black’s article make very clear, click on highest rated and they are all ripping Black a new one.


  5. jazznick says:

    Looking at the comments on Blacks article he is taking quite a kicking.

    Perhaps Mr Harrabin should take this oaf aside and do something similar,
    especially as Heartland look set to sue the ass off anyone who spread
    this shi*.

    From Heartland press statement.
    “The individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation. We ask them in particular to immediately remove these documents and all statements about them from the blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions”

    Let’s hope they stuff the BBC and Guardian to increase their funding !


    • Geyza says:

      And a LOT of comments being referred for moderation.  Including mine where I asked him why there was a blatant double standard in the way he reported the CRU leak, (by covering it up, then downplaying it and defending the CRU and attacking the leaker, but in this case, attacking the Heartland and defending the leaker.)

      I simply asked why the double standard?


      • My Site (click to edit) says:

        I simply asked why the double standard?’

        Interesting that even the most diseased cherry vulture on this blog still gets to pose a question in print.

        I’d ask that one above of them, but well, they don’t seem big on irony.

        I’d monitor that thread to see hwo many referalls creep back after closing if at all. Then, ask the only medium in the land that does not see it’s job to answer legitimate questions what is going on.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        100% correct about the double standard, Geyza!


    • john in cheshire says:

      Until the Blacks of this world have a sense of fear for the consequences of their actions, they will continue spewing out their bile. I just pray that I live long enough to see these  vermin get everything they deserve.
      The thing I hate most about them is that I have taken to writing such words about a fellow human being. Until 1997 I honestly didn’t have a very strong feeling towards socialists, the bbc, muslims or immigrants. But the socialists and muslims in our nation have forced me to have an opinion and thanks to their actions; through the Human Rights movements, the ECJ, the ubiquitous use of the term racist, the climate change howlers, the EU criminals, the MPs who think our money is their money, and much more; my opinion now is that I hate them all and wish they would all remove themselves from my country. Until they collectively fear people like me, the ordinary citizens who have a complete right to exist here under conditions that we want, rather than the socialists, then nothing will change. I want my enemies to live in fear of me  but I don’t have the wherewithal to enforce that fear. My hope lies in the number of ex-servicemen who have been trained to do the jobs that I’m not capable of, to do those things on my behalf. Surely, the military personnel know absolutely what has been going on, and what must be done to restore our nation to those who deserve to live here in peace, freedom and security. Socialists clearly do not, no matter from whence they came. And muslims have no claim of residence whatsoever.


  6. John Anderson says:

    I mentioned the disgraceful Black article in the Open thread yesterday.

    It bears repeating – when the ClimateGate I emails showing clear malfeasance by Jones, Mann et al were revealed,  Black and the BBC deliberately avoided reporting on them.  Claiming that because the emails were “stolen” it would be wrong to publish any of the content.   Essentially kicking it all into touch before the Copenhagen conference.

    When finally forced to comment on ClimateGate I and all the malfeasance by the Hockey Team,  Black tried to ridicule it all,  to dismiss it.

    Likewise he ridiculed the thousnads of ClimateGate II emails which again showed clear malfeasance and added lots of the context to make it clear beyond peradventure how badly the Hockey Team – and the BBC – behaved.

    Along comes the Heartland release.  Does Black hold back because the stuff is obviously “stolen”.  NO.   Does Black do ANY verifying ?  NO.  Does he ridicule the release as revealing nothing of any importance – the HI spends meagre sums compared with the AGW lobby.  NO.

    And when challenged – does Black have the grace to offer any sort of apology,  for instance for his earlier sliming of Antony Watts ?  NO.

    Black is a propagandist,  pure and simple.  Or rather – impure and bloody devious.  His article shows in clear relief the rotten bias at the BBC.


  7. hippiepooter says:

    I really dont see what you gripe is here Mr Hornbury.  The BBC gave exactly the same treatment to the UEA leaked emails.

    Cough, splutter, choke, chortle, gag .. :-E


    • Geyza says:

      On the contrary, Black had the CRU leaked data dump for a fortnight before any news of them came out, and he covered them up, then tried their best to claim that they were either not genuine, or edited and that the big story was that they were illegally hacked (without any evidence of that claim).  Then the BBC tried to claim it was a only few emails taken out of context.

      When in reality, the climategate2 leak show 5 times as many emails which provide all the context you need to see that the origianl leak was of accurate, unedited emails which do show that the climate scientists involved had massive doubts about their own science and that they engaged in dodgy practices.

      In other words, the BBC have behaved completely differently on the two leaks.  The BBC acted to protect the CRU, and claim that they are victims, whereas in this later case, the BBC acted to attack the heartland and protect the leakers.

      The “leak” of the heartland Institute documents shows an intent by the leaker to mislead and slander that good institute by leaking faked information alongside other documents which ‘might’ be genuine. 

      There was no faked or edited information leaked in the “climategate” data dump. ALL that data was accurate and true reflections of the people involved.  There was NO intention or effort to mislead.

      In any case, it does highlight how the scpetical realist side of the climate change argument has to struggle on a pittance and blows out of the water the warmist’s claims of the “denialists being massively funded by big oil”  On the contrary, the alarmist warmists are funded far more than the realists who face economic starvation for daring to commit to real science, wherever that leads, instead of cosy, luxurious consesus dogma.


      • Span Ows says:

        I think hippie was being sarcastic, hence the “Cough, splutter, choke, chortle, gag”


        • Geyza says:

          Sorry, I missed that.  A /sarc tag at the end of such a post is an easy way to prevent misunderstandings.


  8. cjhartnett says:

    Thanks for this Robin.
    Thanks to Black and his selective leaking, I am now aware of the Heartland Institute.
    If only the BBC would tell the truth, then I`d not be so bothered; but now I know of what they`re up to, then the Beeb have produced yet another angry sceptic.
    After lionising Assange, and shutting down UEA/Balen debates they are definitely likely to blow themselves up very soon…cnat` be easy sitting on their pressure cooker whilst pointing me to zealots like Black, and quacks like Harrabin and Gore.
    Reckon the BBC have a death wish as wide as that yellow one down their backs when Abdul comes to town.
    Perpetually leaking ordure into their own jacuzzis now…


  9. Natsman says:

    James Delingpole has a blog devoted to this today:



    • Span Ows says:

      I think Old Goat suits you better!  😎


    • DJ says:

      Good point from Delingpole. What does it say about the BBC that there apparently wasn’t a single person there who looked at the fake e-mail and said ‘hey, you know what, comrades? I don’t think climate sceptics really oppose teaching science. Maybe we need to check this out a bit more’.


  10. Geyza says:

    Isn’t the BBC paid a LOT more than the $44k, that Anthony Watts is getting, by various green media groups in order to promote green propaganda?  And they attack Anthony Watts, without even having the decency to contact him first?



    • London Calling says:

      A great many warmists are not stupid, and it is reasonable to assume that in their hearts they know they are wrong, but can not live up to the consequences of that admission. They remain silent while the Blacks and Harrabins abetted by the vile Guardian claque don their ra ra skirts and pop-poms to cheer on the smearers of noble Heartland.
      There is some thing truly disgusting about Richard Black, and the fact I have to contribute to his salary. Like Stalin’s goons used to shoot their opponents and then charge their grieving relatives for the bullets.


  11. John Horne Tooke says:

    Good one by Josh.


  12. Pete Hayes says:

    Black has the ball…. He shoots!…. He scores………..another own goal!

    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    Only the last one to go guys!


  13. jazznick says:

    Over at Bishop Hill we get a reply from Richard Black !

    See Mike Haseler’ comment and Kak’s reply.

    This is such a clear cut breach of the BBC guidelines, that we must do all we can to bring this to the attention of anyone and everyone who can do something.
    I have already written to the Home Secretary (whose department I believe it is), the head of the BBC and my MP.
    And (as usual) I made a complaint to the BBC and (as usual) got a dismissive reply:
    Dear Mike,
    Thanks for your email. I’m afraid you are bang off the mark… I have
    never said I have a “God-given right”, or any such thing. Can you find a
    single example of me writing this to you?
    You have no way of knowing what attempts I made to establish the
    veracity of the Heartland documents before publication. The one
    Heartland claims to be a fake has its contents duplicated in the other
    seven. I have given them an opportunity to deny explicitly that some of
    the contents are real, and they have not done so – ergo, they are real.
    Bias, Mike, is very much in the eye of the beholder. I’m afraid in your
    case, it may be blinding you to one unfortunate reality of the “climate
    sceptic” movement – that some of it is co-ordinated to protect vested
    interests. As independent, objective journalists, it is our job to
    report on this as much as on any other aspect of the issue.
    Best regards,
    Richard Black
    Feb 17, 2012 at 1:46 PM | <img style=”background: url(http://cdn.js-kit.com/universal/images/core-resources/icons/dark/user-unregistered.png) no-repeat scroll left top transparent;” src=”http://www.bishop-hill.net/universal/images/transparent.png” title=”Unregistered Commenter” alt=”Unregistered Commenter”/>Mike Haseler


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      “I have given them an opportunity to deny explicitly that some of the contents are real, and they have not done so – ergo, they are real.”

      I love the smell of an ‘interesting’ precedent in the afternoon.

      I did not know this is how all this abuse of power lark Helen Boaden was on about now works, holding to account-wise.

      Questions won’t be answered.

      Ergo…. the BBC is up their necks in … mounds of ‘earth’.


  14. cjhartnett says:

    For your encouragement Robin!
    The World At One had Prof Ian Fell on…now there`s a name from the past and with some courage!
    He spoke well in favour of nuclear power, long before many of us wanted to listen: and he spoke clearly and honestly as befits a practical, honest and experienced scientist/engineer.
    The questions from Shaun Ley weren`t too reealing, but they weren`t the usual Chernobyl crap either, so fair enough.
    Not only that, but there was no Tony Juniper or any eejit from the anti-nuclear mob to do an Owen Jones on him.
    Now either the Beeboids have had whacking bills this winter from the energy companies…or else, someone somewher in the BBC is practicing lifeboat drill for when their global warming cruise ship hits that all-too-real iceberg that was supposed to have melted away!
    In any event, stay chirpy Robin…one report does not make a spring, but given the confusion re the seasons and “climate change”, you`ll not mind…maybe the winds of change are coming… 


  15. Richard Pinder says:

    We are all forced to pay for this Scientific Scam through taxes and the BBC licence fee. But I have not and do not pay anything to the Heartland Institute, but I do voluntarily pay towards buying fuel. Therefore I regard oil companies as morally superior to the tax payer funded Green movement, the government and the BBC. In science, the truth always wins, no mater how much money is spent by vested interests in trying to hold back reality. History shows that the Sun rules Climate not Carbon.