It’s not a good week if Richard Black does not gain the interest of our commentariat and so it is that B-BBC contributor Alan observes;
“Richard Black hassurfaced again having gone to ground to give himself thinking time in order towrack his brains to find a line of defence for the person who stole documentsfrom Heartland Institute.
(Should you want some real world science facts listen to this….21 minutes and39 seconds that speaks more common sense than Black has done in his entirecarrer…http://audioboo.fm/boos/679624-matt-ridley-on-why-the-cure-for-climate-change-may-be-worse-than-the-disease?playlist_direction=reversed)
Forced into writing something by the amount of criticism his non-reportinggenerated:
‘I don’t normally do requests, as they say – but I’ve a lot of messages viaemails, blog comments and Twitter asking for a follow-up post on the HeartlandInstitute, and am happy to oblige.’ (as ‘Watts up with That’ reports….UPDATE28: 11:40AM James Evans in commentsreports that “the BBC has finally weighed in, and it’s lame”. It only tookRichard Black 36 hours to be convinced by an onslaught of emails. Whatta guy!The article makeup leaves no question now that Black is biased beyond allhope.’)
This is the best he could do:
‘Firstly, what’s wrong with the Heartland Institute preparing curriculummaterial for use in schools, you’ve asked. “Green groups do it all thetime,” is the allegation.
As a parent and a citizen, if teachers use non-standard curriculum material,the main thing I would be worried about is accuracy.’ He had no such qualms about the fraudulently inaccurate ‘Inconvenient Truths’video peddled by Al Gore. An Al Gore who is making millions from the climatechange ‘business’.Presumably lying fora good cause, or one you have persuaded yourself is a good cause is acceptableto Black.
And of course with Black the problem may or may not be accuracy, his worst failureis to not print the facts if they are ‘inconvenient’….note well that in thislatest effort worthy of Pravda he has avoided completely mentioning that themain document was faked….possibly because he has a good idea who the fakeris….suspicions are all pointing in one direction.
I wonder what he makes of the below where artists and performers are beingorganised to collaborate with ‘on message’ scientists to manufacture thepublic’s consent to their lifestyles being destroyed along with their businessesand futures, energy prices ramped up to extortionate levels on order to pay forpolicies based on at best mistaken science at worst deliberate attempts to hidethe truth:
‘TippingPoint, in partnership with NIReS, will be holding a major national gatheringof those concerned with the interface between the arts and culture on one hand,and environmental issues, particularly climate change, on the other. Our aim is to continue and strengthen the vital process of giving the urgentchallenges of climate change and sustainability a cultural and artisticvoice…..collaborations with scientists, artists can play a vital role inexploring and pointing the way towards the cultural, societal and behaviouralshifts needed in a world subject to a rapidly changing climate.’
Should you be in any doubt that we are being deliberately mislead read this:
Which describes the political, not scientific reasons behind biofuels beingadopted as a solution to climate change.
Another one that Black ignores.
As I said at the start Black has gone on the offensive to defend his previousstance on Heartland….claiming the man who fraudulently obtained the documentsis the real victim of the affair…..
A Guardian story of course.
However he does not link to the likes of this:
Heartland Memo Looking Faker by the Minute
Business Feb 17 2012, 12:14 PM ET 1080
Here are his full thoughts on the matter…they don’t need much comment as theyare clearly a man clutching at straws to defend the indefensible:
‘As the old saying goes, “news is something that someone somewhere doesn’twant you to know”
and here was information about a significant player in climate politics that itcertainly didn’t want you to have.
I am very wary of drawing parallels between the so-called”ClimateGate” issue of 2009 and the so-called “DenierGate”issue of the Heartland Institute, because they are very different.
But one thing they do have in common is that each is really a combination oftwo stories: who lifted the documents, and what the documents tell us.
With the Heartland case, we knew last week that someone had obtained thedocuments by the back door – “stolen”, to use the institute’s word.
Now, we know who; and that’s as far as it goes.
Firstly, what’s wrong with the Heartland Institute preparing curriculummaterial for use in schools, you’ve asked. “Green groups do it all thetime,” is the allegation.
As a parent and a citizen, if teachers use non-standard curriculum material,the main thing I would be worried about is accuracy.
The proposed modules would, for example, state that “whether humans arechanging the climate is a major scientific controversy” and that”natural emissions [of CO2] are 20 times higher than humanemissions”. The first is just wrong. It may be a public debate; but within science, thequestion is how much, not whether. In the second case, natural absorption is not mentioned and it’s the differencebetween the two – net emissions – that is the crucial fact.
Nevertheless, the rationale behind the argument is clear. Heartlandacknowledges it ramps its climate work up and down depending on how much moneyit receives.’