CRACKED RECORD…

Richard Black continues his distinguished record today of unbiased reporting. His theme is to give his wholehearted support to lunatic calls made by climate alarmist-in-chief Lord Adair Turner that would de-industrialise Britain, hobble our economy and force millions into fuel poverty. Mr Black faithfully reports the Committee on Climate Change’s calls for more electric cars (insanely expensive and with the range of a hobbled llama), “clean” energy (technology that is not practical and will add billions to the cost of generation)and for farmers to use fertilisers more efficiently (thereby vastly reducing crop yields and forcing them into bankruptcy). For “balance”, he has comments from government eco-fanatic Chris Huhne and a chap from the Green Council, who,surprise surprise, agree (or want even more drastic measures).

Strangely, Mr Black doesn’t see fit to mention this hugely relevant story; it shows the real consequences of the green policies of the sort Mr Black so ardently advocates. Britain’s first green energy area, the island of Eigg, off Scotland, has been forced to introduce severe power cuts and electricity rationing because of a lack of rainfall and wind. When will Black and his cronies deal with the real facts?

Update: Today carried an item on the Eigg farce, but completely devoid of context.

COSIED UP….

Nice to see Richard Black maintaining his track record in unbiased reporting. His contribution today is a one-sided homily backing our suicidal government’s quest to de-industrialise Britain by pursuing higher CO2 emissions targets. Not a squeak in his report, of course, from anyone who opposes CO2 reductions; but there is a gut- wrenching homily in support from an eco-mania group called Sandbag – they want the Cleggerons to go further. This will ring a bell with those who are regular readers of B-BBC, because clearly, they have become Mr Black’s tame rent-a-quote source of warmist fanaticism. And, as I said before, one of their main board members also works for Futerra, which assists the BBC in training its staff to spread warmist propaganda. Our friend Mr Black may not make money from chairing global warming conferences; but he sure knows how to cosy up to those whose views he worships.

FISHY….

Here we have the BBC’s Richard Black in the oleagenous, snake-oil-salesman mode he adopts whenever he seeks to tell us that he’s listening to sceptics. He tries to convey that the Oxburgh report into Climategate had an important core message; that it’s vital that climate scientists ensure that their work is accompanied by suitable warnings about its limitations. Yet he omits to tell us the most crucial fact in this particular equation – that in reaching their conclusions, Oxburgh and his fanatic cronies chose just 11 papers as a “representative sample” to verify whether porkies were being told. And when asked, the Royal Society (the body which was behind the enquiry) come up with completely fishy explanations like this about how these papers were chosen. As Bishop Hill points out, it’s a bit odd – to put it mildly – that the 11 were exactly the same as those also chosen by the House of Commons for its recent Climategate report. These people obviously think we are total, utter imbeciles.

Such contradictions are clearly far too complicated and too inconvenient for Mr Black to even consider.

COME WHAT MAY

It may be a general election, and we may be emerging from the coldest winter in thirty years. But hey ho, this is the BBC, and there’s always a global warming scare story around somewhere. Today, it’s that old canard, “early spring”. The fanatics at the Woodland Trust have done a bit of cod research to back up their prejudices, and Richard Black has swallowed it hook, line and sinker, as usual. If he’d spent two minutes searching the internet, he would have found this excellent piece, filed yesterday, which urges strong caution and points out that all such claims are fraught with problems. It lays bare how warmists, led by the BBC, have been pushing relentlessly this seam of scariness for more than a decade. But never let the facts get in the way of a good scare story, Richard, eh? And certainly never quote anybody who might disagree with your moonshine.

GREEN WASTE…

Here’s the BBC’s Richard Black at his best, positively beside himself with glee because China is now wasting more money on “renewables” than that nasty place of over-production and excess, the USA. His tone throughout is one of adulation for what China (and Britain – alarmingly for us now in third place) have achieved in tipping money down the drain. Note, too, that there is no mention in his report of the most crucial factor, namely that Spain’s policy over eight years of busting a gut to invest in green projects was a national disaster. A survey – the most detailed of its kind – by Spanish academics found:

Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the US should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about nine jobs lost for every four created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.

OMG Global Warming!!!

BBC environment correspondent Richard Black, quoted by Robin Horbury yesterday:

I’m not surprised at the level of UK scepticism as the main impacts of climate change are decades away and in other places. The problem is poor science awareness. We need to improve science education so people properly understand climate science.

So it’s the sceptics who need educating is it?

http://twitter.com/alexporter82/statuses/9733582968
http://twitter.com/Meggyyyyy/statuses/9733330327
http://twitter.com/JamesG29803/statuses/9731734871
http://twitter.com/shine2u/statuses/9742357989

http://twitter.com/A_n_gel/statuses/9743615199
http://twitter.com/RexRayFan/statuses/9752321618
http://twitter.com/justthemo/statuses/9746625752
http://twitter.com/MichelleMichie/status/9746011386
http://twitter.com/Penguinchic1/statuses/9770095174
http://twitter.com/IshaSG/statuses/9768322179

http://twitter.com/Bibhuti_Bhusan/status/9765934744

http://twitter.com/iamanushka/statuses/9765786835
http://twitter.com/rjscheiwillerr/statuses/9765581299
http://twitter.com/hdnyc/statuses/9765292555
http://twitter.com/senoritamayra/statuses/9764404410
http://twitter.com/bineshbharath/statuses/9752728734
http://twitter.com/VitoFun/status/9740331086
http://twitter.com/camillabraine/statuses/9750411050
http://twitter.com/EllissaP/status/9749480794

There’s lots, lots more like that. At least they’re not uneducated idiots like those sceptics.

Update 17.30
. Let’s not overlook the fact that it’s probably all about oil too.

Dead as a dodo?

Greenies, supported tirelessly by the BBC, never give up in their efforts to persuade us that we are all going to hell in a handcart. The UN, of course is the revered cheerleader, and today – as their ‘climate change’ fascism seems to have stalled a tad after Copenhagen – this corrupt Hydra has turned its attention to the need for ‘biodiversity’. There’s a special year devoted to it. So seriously does the BBC take this threat that it has sent Richard Black on a jolly to Berlin to watch the revered secretary-general deliver his hellfire sermon that we must stop our wicked ways. To him, there is no doubt what’s wrong:

The expansion of human cities, farming and infrastructure is (sic) the main reason. Dignitaries including UN chief Ban Ki-moon…will speak at the launch in Berlin. Mr Ban is due to say that human expansion is wiping out species at about 1,000 times the “natural” or “background” rate, and that “business as usual is not an option”.

As usual, Mr Black – in pursuit of his greenie zealotry – obviously thinks the science is totally settled and the words of Mr Ban are the Holy Writ. It’s the Wicked West to blame, as always. Shame that he could not do a little journalism and look for alternative views – this, for example from the Watt’s Up With That? blog. It points out that despite all the hot air about extinction:

Very few continental birds or mammals are recorded as having gone extinct, and none have gone extinct from habitat reduction alone. No continental forest bird or mammal is recorded as having gone extinct from any cause. Since the species-area relationship predicts that there should have been a very large number of recorded bird and mammal extinctions from habitat reduction over the last half millennium, I show that the species-area relationship gives erroneous answers to the question of extinction rates.

Complex stuff, but it shows just how deeply, deeply one-sided the BBC always is in its science coverage.

BLACK IS WHITE (AGAIN)

Is this a greenie fanatic, our friend Richard Black, in retreat? Lost for words, so therefore back-pedalling madly? At bay? Or just more BBC hot air? You decide! One thing is for certain. Writers like Black would never accept for a second that there might be something wrong with their over-arching ‘climate change’ fantasy.

Copenhagen Guest Blogger

(This is a guest blog from BBC environment correspondent Richard Blackbin in Copenhagen.)

Why can’t more people be just like me?

The question first came to mind on the plane to Copenhagen as I caressed my cheek with my Guardian COP15 84-page pull-out supplement.

If more people were like BBC environment correspondents, I reflected, then the world would be a better place because people like me understand things so much better than ordinary folk.

Gazing out from the window at the frosty city landscape while we circled the airport, another thought struck me: perhaps I should have worn a little more than a Greenpeace T-shirt, Bermuda shorts and Birkenstock sandals.

I asked the stewardess if there was a clothes shop in the terminal building where I could purchase some sturdy boots and a reasonably priced winter coat made from sustainable natural products, but she didn’t seem to understand.

“Have you at least heard of Fair Trade in Denmark?” I asked, pointedly.

“Sir, I can’t understand a word you’re saying when you’ve got your thumb in your mouth,” she replied, rather too harshly for my liking. Maybe she was one of those “conservative women” one sometimes hears about. I was quite shaken, and decided not to press the issue. I would jolly well find a shop myself, I thought.

As things turned out, I didn’t have to.

There I was shivering by the baggage carousel waiting for my duffle bag (small size, made from sustainable Romanian hemp) when who should I see but Marmaduke Quimly-Farquharson, one of Oxfam’s go-getting young press officers. We have shared many thousands of air miles together travelling the world to exotic locations for various climate conferences. Indeed, we’d both been on the same flight just then but thanks to all this frightful recent scrutiny about BBC expenses I’m no longer able to travel up in first with all my pals from the NGOs.

In one of the many acts of kindness one often experiences at these events (populated as they are by caring planet-loving types and not old right-wing white men with their sceptical views) Marmaduke offered to lend me a coat on condition that I give Oxfam a bit of a mention now and then during my reports. I agreed, of course. “After all, we’re in this together!” I said.

“Indeed we are!” he replied. “Why quite can’t more people be just like you, Richard?”

My thoughts exactly.

Group Fisk

Richard Black asks ‘Why are virtually all climate “sceptics” men?‘ I don’t have time to give this the fisking it deserves but I’ll get the ball rolling by noting that the question occurred to him while reading the Guardian on a plane to Copenhagen.

[Hat tips to Rachel Miller (funny name for a climate sceptic) and Roland Deschain in the comments.]

Update. Also, feel free to add your own Richard Black-style questions. For example:

Why are virtually all BBC “journalists” left-wing?
Why are virtually all BBC “environment correspondents” arts graduates?
Why are virtually all “reports by Justin Rowlatt” such desperate pleas for attention?

Update. 17.35. A quick scan of the comments at Black’s blog suggests that the group fisk is already taking place over there. Don’t let that stop you here, though.

CRUMBS FROM THE TABLE

Richard Black, reporting self-indulgently and with puffed-up arrogance about his earth-saving role at Copenhagen, notes:

Most of the real deals are done behind closed doors guarded by security guys with stern faces and impressive pectorals.That’s where the important countries and blocs reveal more of their real demands, where trades are bartered between national delegations. Reporting it is a nightmare.

So that’s how the new world government that Richard wants to much will operate? Thugs barring entry to lesser mortals while the “important” shadowy blocs impose their lunatic will on the rest of us? Yet our intrepid Richard seems only to be breathless with admiration, and proudly tells us how he procures the crumbs from their dictatorial tables. And meanwhile, he and the rest of his 35 cronies at Copenhagen continue to spew out their lying propaganda.

BLACK IS WHITE (AGAIN)

This morning, the Times reported that the World Meteorological Orgainsation, using data from CRU, and with the clear purpose of influencing the discussions at Copenhagen, had claimed that this year had been the fifth warmest on record. Hours later, our dear BBC environnment correspondent Richard Black reports the same story. He mentions that there’s some controversy about the figures – and about CRU – but without a peep about the key propaganda point. He seems to take the whole thing at its face value, and ignores completely that these weather organisations are involved in a massive rigging exercise. Not only that, his story is illustrated with a blazing sun and a rigged graph that is a crude schoolboy variation of the hockey stick. How much more blatant can you be?

CLIMATEGATE – THE BBC SMOKING GUN?

There’s an interesting post from Ben today about my post on Saturday outlining BBC environment correspondent Richard Black’s response to Climategate. Ben says:

The “climate scientists” implicated in Climategate clearly think of Black as one of their own. When the fair article “Whatever Happened to Global Warming” (written by Paul Hudson, weatherman with a First in Geophysics and Planetary Physics) appeared on the BBC website, the Team were not amused. Here’s Michael Mann in one of the emails:

“extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

And in another post, Will S suggests that a FoI request is put in to the BBC to see what email exchanges there have been between Black, Harrabin et al and the CRU unit. An intersting idea. The Mann email clearly suggests much closer links than is normal between journalists and their sources – (to me) it sounds as though he knows Black will do his bidding. Is this the smoking gun showing that the BBC is in bed with the whole climate change scam?

Jo Abbess – Comedy Genius

Eco-warrior Jo Abbess, occasional editor of Roger Harrabin articles, is now focusing her attention on another BBC environment correspondent. I would quote some snippets but you really have to read the whole thing to get the full hilarious impact of her authoritarian pomposity.

The question is – will Richard Black follow Harrabin and do as Jo demands?

Update. It seems like a lot of effort considering Black is pretty much on her side anyway.