Biased BBC’s Alan notes;

“Richard Black illustrates why he is not a good journalist…allowing prejudice and bad judgement to influence his reporting. On Twitter he claims people who don’t follow the ‘consensus’ in science damage the planet…meaning the ‘Sceptics’ on AGW except his example would actually denounce the BRIC countries that are being allowed to carry on pumping out CO2 to enable them to industrialize (if the CO2 issue is so important, ie the planet is going to die if we continue producing CO2, how is possible to allow that?).

14:31 UK time, Thursday, 29 December 2011
@BBCRBlack via Twitter
‘Record year’ for ivory seizures – or how beliefs that run counter to science damage the environment
“I fear the criminals are winning,” he said.
‘Some environmental campaigners say the decision to allow some southern African countries, whose elephants populations are booming, to sell their stockpiles of ivory has fuelled the illegal trade.
Those countries – South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe – however, deny this and argue they should be rewarded for looking after their elephant populations.’

Black also links to one of his stories, sorry, reports, from 2006 about Canada, the evil planet destroying Conservatives, and Kyoto…
Will Kyoto die at Canadian hands?
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website
Is Canada’s newly elected Conservative Party now preparing to don the mantle of Darth Vader and emasculate the protocol to the point of impotence?

In this Black claims only the Canadian Conservatives believe the Kyoto Protocol is completely ineffective…..history now tells us most countries think that. What is interesting is that Canada has now pulled out of the climate agreements….it was a big story….but Black ignore’s this event….

Canadian Senate Climate Science and Economics Hearing – 15/12/11!
  ….which has prominent and qualified sceptics reporting to the Canadian Senate.
I wonder why Black isn’t too keen to have you see this…could it be that the arguments made are compelling and credible whilst pro AGW voices have been shown to be corrupt, inept and unscientific?


Michael Buerk, for years one of the main BBC newsreaders, and now presenter of the R4’s Moral Maze, has long been a trenchant critic of the BBC’s climate reporting. Almost a year ago, he took a direct kick here at the rampant eco-loonery when Peter Sissons savaged the corporation’s espousal of climate alarmism in his memoirs. This week, he’s renewed his attack on the BBC Trustees – along with Harrabin, Black and their crusader colleagues – in a new blog called The Fifth Column. He points out that although he himself does believe in anthropogenic warming, the BBC’s reporting of the issue is a pile of odure. He says:

What gets up my nose is being infantilized by governments, by the BBC, by the Guardian that there is no argument, that all scientists who aren’t cranks and charlatans are agreed on all this, that the consequences are uniformly negative, the issues beyond doubt and the steps to be taken beyond dispute.

There’s much more in his short, punchy essay (hinged on the BBC’s reporting of the Durban summit), all of it brilliantly crafted to say that the corporation’s stance on this topic is indefensible.

The only question now is whether Mr Buerk will be ignored (as usually happens), fired, or someone is paid to ridicule him. My guess is that it will probably be Fiona Fox. She’s got form.

PS: I missed this pre-Christmas piece of naked agitprop from Richard Black attacking those who dare to challenge that nice EU’s punitive new tax on air travel. Jaw-dropping, even by his standards.


As Durban fizzles out – much to Richard Black’s chagrin– and the wheels spectacularly fall off the renewables frenzy, Christopher Booker has summed up brilliantly the saga of how the corporation has abandoned its impartiality. There’s no hiding place from his searchlight; what has happened has been a deliberate, sustained climate alarmist campaign sanctioned from the highest levels and pursued with a vigour that would have impressed even Goebbels and Speer. The stench is now firmly at the door of the trustees, those “independent” citizens who are supposed to be the watchdogs of the BBC’s £3.5bn budget and its journalistic integrity.

This morning, to me, Tony Newbery of Harmless Sky – whose impressive work Christopher Booker’s paper is based upon – has posed the most interesting question about their behaviour in this massive breach of the Royal Charter. For years the trustees claimed they had commissioned the Jones report into their science coverage only because it was part of a regular cycle of such reviews – it was not linked at all to mounting evidence of bias in their output and deliberate sidelining of sceptics. But Mr Newbery has spotted that Roger Harrabin, in his defence of his seedy links with the UEA Tyndall Centre, has let the cat out of the bag and given lie to their posturing. He said in a recent interview:

Climate sceptics seeking more space on the BBC helped provoke the Trust’s investigation into science impartiality but the Trust said we were already giving them too much space – not too little.

This means that without a shadow of a doubt, the trustees have known all along that they are engaged in a window dressing exercise and cynically commissioned the Jones nonsense both to cover their backs and to ram home even further that they did not give a stuff about sceptic opinion.

Could that be because at least three of them – Lord Patten, Diana Coyle and Anthony Fry – have direct pecuniary interests in the climate change scam? And I note that the latest trustee appointment (on December 1), Lord Williams of Baglan (who worked for the BBC World Service and then became a UN envoy) is also a climate change fanatic. The fact that he worked for the UN is enough to damn him, but he also lists among his financial interests membership of the international advisory board of CITPAX, a body that claims it supports peace, but in reality is engaged in climate change propaganda at the core of his activities.

To me, the BBC trustees are nothing more than a cosy club of climate change activists. Richard Black and his chums are scurrying around doing their bidding.


Former BBC science reporter David Whitehouse explains with masterful precision here why BBC science journalism has turned into sychophantic political drivel. Basically, Mr Whitehouse says that the corporation should be challenging eveything it hears from scientists; instead it is recycling their words as if they were gospel. To me, the most telling blow is when he compares science reporting now to how political reporting used to be in the 1950s before Robin Day and the young Turks at ITN broke the mould.

Proof that he’s right is not hard to find in today’s wearisome quota of alarmist propaganda put out by the posse of so-called BBC science correspondents. Here Richard Black continues his strident eco-tub thumping from Durban, his homily this morning based on a slavish regurgitation of a press release from an outfit called ECOFYS, a group of eco-whack subsidy looters who are busy fuelling Chris Huhne’s insatiable desire to cover the United Kingdom with bird-slicing rotor blades. And here, one of Mr Black’s colleagues, Joanthan Amos, feeds the world-is-melting frenzy with a piece of recycled pap from another alarmist boondoggle, this one the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting in San Francisco.

BBC “science” reporters: strenuously working to peddle you unfiltered alarmist propaganda from freebies everywhere.


As John Anderson has already pointed out in comments, Christopher Booker has written a report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation about the BBC’s reporting of climate change and it’s due out tomorrow. Not sure what he will reveal that has not already been reported here or on other blogs like Bishop Hill or Harmless Sky – but Booker is always sharp and to the point and I’m looking forward to it. Hugely.

Meanwhile, liked a stuck vinyl record – and underlining that BBC relentless bias – Richard Black continues his dire refrain from the carbon-guzzling fest in Durban. Today’s homily is about the need to protect nations vulnerable to climate change from the impacts of nasty CO2, including “rising sea levels” and “droughts”. Er, But Mr Black, the rising seal level threat has been exaggerated by a factor of 10. And droughts happen, irrespective of rising CO2. Actually, Africa and the developing world is far more at risk from tranzis and government aid – especially when they focus on the climate – than such alleged impacts, but that doesn’t fit the hate-the-capitalist creed.


Richard Black is getting pretty desperate. The reality is that nothing but hot air is emerging from the Durban climate boondoggle – showing maybe (though I am not so sure as Richard North) that the alarmist propaganda camapign is a busted flush – so overnight, he’s posted a crassly-manufactured story in an effort to give fresh momentum to his scare campaign. He tells us with wearisome predictability that “the science” has now found the only reason we are not roasting from greenhouse gases is because of aerosol emissions (a great double whammy, that); that the Himalayan glaciers are melting fast than ever (on a new sample size of 10 out of 54,000, the IPCC was right after all); and that even though we have had an economic recession, nasty carbon emissions are continuing to belch out of our filthy capitalist backsides almost as fast as before.

Mr Black presents all these theories for one reason only – the Durban talks are as disastrously divided as were Copenhagen and Cancun, and he is scraping the barrel to find something that will tell us otherwise. My guess is his latest scare stories will be as reliable as the rest of the outpourings from the alarmist camp. What’s Up With That has started the assault – to put it mildly, the glacier research looks – as I suspected – to be pure alarmist drivel. As I said: wearisome predictability. He is beyond parody.


Spot the difference. Richard Black of the BBC leads the way in “sock-puppet journalism”. Jo Nova has a superb post showing how a select band of climate change eco-fanatics round the world have deployed 10 excuses to tell us that the Climategate emails should be ignored, for example, they are old, they were nicked, the timing is suspicious, or, the science is nevertheless valid. Surprise, surprise, Mr Black was the world leader off the blocks within a matter of hours, and deployed an impressive seven out of the ten sock-puppet excuses. I sense a Royal Television Society gong is in the offing for such impressive services to propaganda…

Meanwhile, from his boondoggle climate change guerilla post in sunny Durban, Mr Black continues the incessant campaign to send us back to the stone age. Here, he pushes a report on the evils of coal from Banktrack, an eco-fascist concern bankrolled by the usual suspects – Greenpeace and its ilk.


Here, David Rose of the Mail on Sunday does a very creditable job for the second week running in teasing out the BBC’s cosy links to the eco fanatics at the University of East Anglia. I particularly like that he has spotted that one of the Cilmategate 2 emails was from the producer of an Alan Titchmarsh series, underlining the extent to which ecomania has seeped into the DNA of almost everyone at the BBC. Most of this info, of course, has been already revealed on this and other websites such as Bishop Hill. But finally, parts of the MSM seem to be waking up to the climate change scam and the BBC’s role as propagandist-in-chief. Yet the BBC ploughs on regardless – perhaps the most disturbing element of the David Rose article is that despite all the shenanigans that have surfaced in the emails, the BBC still blithely insists that it is “impartial”.

Meanwhile, Richard Black, the principal propagandist for the “impartial” corporation, continues to file alarmist garbage with wearisome predictability. Here, he is lamenting that the Durban climate change boondoggle possibly won’t result in an agreement, and acting as His Master’s Voice for the ludicrous (we have ways of making you freeze) Chris Huhne.


Did you see that BBC climate change activist Richard Black has concluded that there is little demand for  nuclear energy?

“There is little public appetite across the world for building new nuclear reactors, a poll for the BBC indicates. In countries with nuclear programmes, people are significantly more opposed than they were in 2005, with only the UK and US bucking the trend. Most believe that boosting efficiency and renewables can meet their needs. Just 22% agreed that “nuclear power is relatively safe and an important source of electricity, and we should build more nuclear power plants”.”

It’s interesting to see the BBC take such an active interest in this and I am sure the fact that the poll results facilitate the eco-wacko agenda is purely coincidental.


A couple of days ago he was getting his panties in a bunch about those evil Koch Brothers, today it’s the Anglo-Saxon world in general:

To those who despair of the success of sceptical lobbying, the message is clear: learn one of the languages of Brazil, China or India.

Even French might do at a pinch.

Black’s article – which bemoans the apparent undue influence of climate scepticism in English-speaking countries – is based on a report by a former BBC journalist (naturally) from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. The RISJ is funded in part by George Soros – a good-guy evil capitalist who uses his money to promote the sort of left-wing propaganda approved of by BBC journalists. Other funding for the RISJ comes from the BBC, the BBC World Service and the British Council, which means we pay for it at least three times over. And one of the ubiquitous Joseph Rowntree trusts is involved too, of course.

Anyway, I hope it’s all true. Altogether now (to the tune of U-S-A! U-S-A!): AN-GLO-SAX’N! AN-GLO-SAX’N! AN-GLO-SAX’N!


Had to laugh at this item (7.17am) on Today this morning.  It suggest the RADICAL news that the big orange thing in the sky – the Sun – might actually affect weather on the Earth. I know, I know, who would have figured that one, huh? Anyway, our dear friend Richard Black was on hand to quickly point out that whilst the Sun may help us predict UK winters, this has no effect in any way on the very real danger of …Man Made Global Warming. (Actually, he’s right in one way, since AGW doesn’t exist, nothing can have an impact on it!) It was the speed of his comment that was entertaining, he was clearly determined that no one out there might have a second or two to conclude that it is the Sun, that vast body at the heart of our Solar System, that is the major determinant of our planet’s weather. And that might unravel the hysterical but lucrative fantasy of AGW.


There’s no doubt whose side the BBC is on in Julia Gillard’s attempts to force her country into economic suicide by taxing “carbon” output. Australia is a “worst polluter”, so of course such measures are right. A picture of horrendous, belching CO2 (actually, most likely steam, but never mind – the message has to be rammed home by the BBC thought police) has been carefully selected to show just how bad it is. Yes, opposition leader Tony Abbott is quoted and it is made clear that 60% of electors also oppose the measures, but the thrust of the story is that coal-guzzling Aussies must take their medicine and Miss Gillard is a saint.

Meanwhile, Richard Black continues his vicious campaigning to discredit the hated deniers. Here, in a pile of statistical gobledeygook and obfuscation, he turns his fire on that nasty rag the Daily Mail and mentions specifically a story carried last week by someone he calls Christopher Brooker which had the effrontery to challenge the idea that we would all be frying but for Chinese aerosol particles. I posted on the story last week to show how biased the BBC’s coverage was.

Actually, Mr Black, it is Christopher Booker. I’ve been reading his journalism and his books for more than 40 years, and I would venture to suggest that he knows more about his craft in his little finger than you do at all. Here, in case you missed it, is his latest piece on the zealotry that you espouse; I would also recommend you read this – his sharp, knowledgeable book on the massive scam that your are perpetrating with such venom. Next time, though, if you want to attack such targets, at least use your spellcheck. And show some respect.


To all of those cynics out there who consider the EU a black-hearted tyranny, chill. Richard Black, BBC Environment correspondent brings us good news…

The European Commission will not call for tougher targets on carbon emmissions despite analysis showing doing so would be cost-effective.

If you read the item he has posted, there is a distinct sense of disappointment that the noble Eurocrats have not imposed even stiffer targets on carbon emissions, thus implying that the 20% targets already in place are reaonable and sensible – when nothing could be further from the truth!

Fellow B-BBC writer Robin Horbury has done a great job exposing the activist role played by Black and others even as they posture as models of journalistic impartiality. I simply take the view that everything Black says is justwell, so much hot air. Can we cap that?

"The unbelieving… shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone"

Further to Robin’s post about Richard Black’s “nothing much to see here, move along now” article about the Climategate inquiries – I was amused to see that the BBC chose to highlight the significance of CRU data on climate models with a ludicrous alarmist image which appears to show bubbling oceans of lava.

Dear Richard Black,

Subject: your New Year message

I know sharks are very, very important to you and I concur with you that it is not right that we still treat them so cruelly and wastefully. It is strange – to me at least – that you write about this topic without mentioning that the EU’s common fisheries policy is the world’s most damaging rat’s nest of rules affecting fish stocks and sea conservation. But no matter, I know that the BBC rather likes the EU and regularly worships at its altar, so I understand why you brush that under the carpet and point the finger of blame in other directions.

May I respectfully raise other queries about your New Year Encyclical on the environment? First I wonder why you dismiss so disdainfully the concerns of Spanglerboy and JackHughes that in your environment beat, you are still a little obsessed with climate change and “emissions”? I know that like me, you are not a scientist, but there is accumulating evidence that is not hard to find that perhaps the AGW curve is not as uninterrupted as you have regularly made out. The Arctic Sea ice has not gone (in fact, according to the BBC’s own report, normally open sea lanes in the Arctic are, as I write, somewhat clogged by ice), ski resorts are not without snow, there is record snow, even in Japan, and, oh yes, despite firm predictions by the Met office back in 2000 that snow would become a rare event, we have had three consecutive winters of arctic temperatures far removed from what the Met Office’s £33m supercomputer predicted and we have just experienced the coldest UK December in 120 years. Some are calling for an inquiry, but I know you and your BBC colleagues don’t think that such views are important enough to report. I could go on, but I don’t want to give you too much to digest. I know you probably view all this as just “weather” and further evidence that AGW is about to kill us all, but I still think that – given the highly influential save-the-world role that you believe you have – you might just think for one moment that the BBC-supported “consensus” on this topic is looking increasingly creaky, and you might at least occasionally break the habits of a lifetime and mention maybe a smidgeon of the rather interesting and persuasive evidence that does not agree with your own views.

After all, you do claim to be a journalist. When I was trained by the BBC, in what is now the Langham Hotel in a very different era, we were taught to cast our net more widely than speaking to people who agreed with us. Instead, you come out with strangely confrontational platitudes like this:

I’m still seriously writing about global warming – do you seriously doing (sic, I think he missed out “think”) otherwise is an option, given the importance of the issue?

I’m writing this because – with the greatest respect – this seems to me to be prima facie evidence that you yourself seem to be elephantinely incapable of absorbing any other perspectives but those of greenie change-the-world activism. Could 2011 be the year that you change?

Yours sincerely,
Robin Horbury (the man you sought to sue)