Wednesday
Sep222010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Black tongue-lashed
Sep 22, 2010 BBC Climate: other Richard Black has been on the receiving end of a Joe Romm tongue-lashing. Apparently he wrote an article that didn't mention catastrophe anywhere, which I must say surprises me almost as much as it must have surprised Dr Romm. Unfortunately, the cynic in me wonders if Richard B's new-found guardedness about the impendingness of the end of the world mightn't have been prompted by the review of BBC science coverage I mentioned in the last posting.
Remind me though - did Richard ever write an article about Climategate?
Reader Comments (59)
When they start fighting amongst themselves you know they are running scared.
Rats & Sinking Ships?
Perhaps, perchance to dream?
Peter Walsh
I had read Black's article when he put it out, and was constantly expecting "due to climate change" to appear at every turn, but it never did! I can't tell you how refreshing that was. Now of course the poor sod's getting a caining for being ever so slightly less "certain". Shame. I hope because of this backlash he realizes that certainty is only a short walk away from fanatisism, and will try harder at being more balanced.
Black writes: 'But this is, at least in my experience, the first time that "warmers" - those who, like Dr Romm, believe climate change is taking us to hell in a handcart and who lobby for more urgent action on the issue - have resorted to the internet equivalent of taking banners onto the street in an attempt to influence reporting of the issue.
It may be something that other journalists have seen before - I can only report that I have not. Always, in my experience, it has come from the side of "the debate" that Dr Romm abhors.
I am wondering, therefore, whether it does presage the start of something - whether it is now going to be routine for those of us who attempt to report on climate change objectively to be on the receiving end of barrages of critical mail, stimulated by bloggers with a definable agenda, whenever we write something that does not tally with their agenda.'
Now that is interesting. I don't quite follow how 'Always,in my experience' ties in with 'I have not' [seen it before], but leave that aside.
In my experience, very few journalists, especially on the BBC, write anything other than material that wouldn't look out of place in an IPCC Summary Report or in a Greenpeace press release, and therefore they have not been likely to attract the ire of the alarmists.
My own experience is that the sceptics are more likely to be civilised and polite, and to try to engage with arguments and data. The alarmists on the other hand sometimes seem so imbued with zeal and fury that they are impatient with others who ask them to pause. They jolly well see the emergency and do not wish to stand around discussing it! Their variant of calling out fire in a crowded theatre is that they keep believing it to be true, and get furious when a patron asks what all the fuss is about.
I think Black has had a taste of what many of us can attest to, that zealots don't care to discuss things, especially when they think they are winning and have great momentum. And why wouldn't they think that, given the astonishing level of political support they have had from governments, the leaders of some scientific societies, the UN IPCC, and various vested interests?
Joe Romm's acolytes were sure whipped up into a frenzy of hate of Richard Black for that article. One almost feels sorry for RB; except he has spun such alarmist BS in the past. Perhaps he now knows what is like to be called a denier.
Black writes: 'But this is, at least in my experience, the first time that "warmers" - those who, like Dr Romm, believe climate change is taking us to hell in a handcart and who lobby for more urgent action on the issue - have resorted to the internet equivalent of taking banners onto the street in an attempt to influence reporting of the issue.
But he has missed the blasting Harribin got via email from 'The Team' as detailed in the climategate emails, it was becuase of the artical he wrote about the plateauing of temps since 1998.
wasn't that paul hudson bbc
Et tu, Brute?
How old do you think Richard Black is? The other day I was looking at the chart of "Global Temperature Anomaly" and the approx 1degC increase in its value since 1960. Well that's approximately my life and I thought "well, what's changed? What's different now?" I remember some snowy winters and some summer heat waves, English cloudy skies and changeable weather which confounds the forecasters. So what is different and so dreadful? I don't know and I wonder if Richard Black ever asks himself the same question? And if anyone has answers, backed by data, I'd like to know where this calculated 1degC rise in Global Average Temperature is showing up and causing trouble where previously all was well.
Graphic here:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Screen-shot-2010-09-17-at-3.20.37-PM.png
Sep 22, 2010 at 7:33 PM | John Shade says
"My own experience is that the sceptics are more likely to be civilised and polite, and to try to engage with arguments and data."
I have tried this route with Richard through BBC complaints. I initially got an answer which avoided the actual science that I referred to. When pressed for an answer to these areas, I was ignored.
You, John, go on to say "I think Black has had a taste of what many of us can attest to, that zealots don't care to discuss things, especially when they think they are winning and have great momentum."
I have to say that has exhibited ( to me) all the signs of the zealots that you refer to.
Yes it was Paul Hudson, how many climate journalists do they need ?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100018243/the-bbc-and-climategate-was-a-reporter-put-under-pressure-to-ignore-the-story/
"But this is, at least in my experience, the first time that "warmers" - those who, like Dr Romm, believe climate change is taking us to hell in a handcart and who lobby for more urgent action on the issue - have resorted to the internet equivalent of taking banners onto the street in an attempt to influence reporting of the issue."
somehow Black seems to have missed that Room has been running his blog for years (and doing exactly that). A few minutes at Romm's blog, perhaps perusing the convenient media category, would show Black how prevalent use of this is by Joe Romm alone. Of course if Black were born yesterday or never reads any of the warmist blogs he might actually have legitimately missed the attempts to influence the media, but the more likely explanation is that until it was directed at him, he was able to ignore it. Hopefuly Black is honest enough and dedicated enough to check the records to see how prevalent the tactics he decried in the Schneider article he mentions have been used by those on the side of the angels (warmists). Black might be amazed to discover that it was warmists who first called for sceptics to be fired from any job involving climate and have made more than a few threats against deniars (sic).
Mr Black never got round to writing about Climate Gate..... he seems to have too busy in November and December writing about a jaunt to Copenhagen for some pointless conference or other!
So far this week hasn't been bad, Moonbat seems to have wobbled slightly and even Black is getting some flack for not towing the party line... He'll probably be in front of a BBC discaplinary panel by the end of the week for endagering their pensions.
I just wonder what the real agenda is here.
Mr Black is such a dyed in the wool waminista himself.... The theory of AGW is very much like a religion and he is a fully paid up member (even an alter boy) at that particular temple. If Mr. Black has had some sort of epiphany and looked at the science, he would quickly see that AGW 'science' is a crock. He would then renounce the belief and denounce all members of that church.
I just cannot trust the man until he does.
This reminds me of the quote from Somerset Maugham, citing a law professor who instructed his students: “If you have the facts on your side, hammer them into your jury. If you have the law on your side, hammer it into the judge. If you have neither, hammer on the table.”
Joe Romm (et alii) have reached the "hammer on the table" phase.
JohnH, Paul Hudson is not a journalist, but a weatherman .
Black certainly is experiencing the "DENIARRR" Bodysnatcher fingerpointing that sceptics have endured for years. But he won't recognise it, he won't connect the dots and he won't have an epiphany.
You can lead a warmie horse to water but you cannot for the life of you get its damn blinkers off, nor change the fact it has a brain the size of a walnut.
Paul Hudson's short biography. He's a good lad.
The image which keeps coming to mind is that of a state facing an uprising, which might well be an overthrow of the existing order. It isn't certain from all points of view yet, but there's change in the air and this looks dangerous.
Some people are definitely associated with the old regime and are committed come what may. Others will have to look very carefully at changing sides and get the timing and get the manner of jumping right. Keeping quiet for a bit might be useful. The old regime still has a sting, and it just might manage to survive. However, there's no point in being one of the idiots fighting to the last bullet over a lost cause if you can avoid it.
Louis XVIII, 14 July 1789: "Is it a rebellion?" "No, Sire, it is a revolution."
Crooks and liars need no excuse to stock their Bastilles, but there does come a day...
Please:
LOOK at Paul Hudson 'hard science' qualifications vs Roger English degree harrabin, and not known Richard Black.
"Paul was born and brought up in Keighley, near Bradford and after reading geophysics and planetary physics at Newcastle University,"
Michael Mann's first though, on that Paul Hudson article was to contact Richard Black.
Where does the BBC spend the bulk of its recruitment advertising? The Guardian! This must still really impress New Labour. Do BBC execs now also buy another newspaper aswell, so they can be seen with the "correct" newspaper, tucked under their arm (possibly unread) depending on who they are hoping to meet and impress? Any insiders or whistleblowers care to elaborate?
I've heard the Beeb referred to as "The broadcast edition of The Guardian".
Yer know, there are some national treasures we could definitely do with selling off.
As much as I've given credit in advance to GM and RH in the past about what they might do in the future, I hesitate to do the same for RB.
I simply can not detect, in the man, one shred of that quality, combining humility with self-doubts, which
underpins great journalism. Hope I'm wrong.
Whoa!! Those guys at climateprogress.org don't do discussion very well do they?
They do have lynching nearly perfected however...
One of those sites when you just know that there is absolutely no point whatsoever in wasting your limited typing skills.
When they start fighting amongst themselves you know they are running scared.
Sep 22, 2010 at 7:04 PM | JohnH
Says JohnH. For anyone who would like to know how much integrity JohnH has, I'll repost one of his comments from this website a little while back. A comment, incidentally, which Andrew Montford felt no need to delete at the time:
'Was that the Daily Mail article? Somebody said Zedsdeadbed was a she, do you know? Also David from Cheltenham seems a bit of an intense alarmist.'
Yep thats them, wasted 10 mins of my life yesterday clicking -VE against all their posts, satisfying though ;)
Jun 12, 2010 at 5:39 PM | JohnH
First Harrabin, then Pearce, Monbiot, now Black, all negotiating furiously to try to re-invent themselves as people who have been in the 'rational' and even-handed camp all along.
It's good to see them finally taking a look at themselves.
After all, what do you call a Warmist with self-awareness? A skeptic.
This is the start of something. There is an effort at some climate blogs to get people to write to their local newspapers every time the issue comes up.
Rick Bradford - they have been sitting on the end of the CAGW branch chattering gormlessly to one another so loudly and for so long that they are only now starting to hear the sound of sawing - and it's coming from the direction of the trunk! Whether wittingly or not, Black's "new" experience of what we all know to be standard warmist bile has given him a neat excuse for a Damascene conversion - will he take the opportunity, and jump to the safe side of the saw? And, as you imply, who will he find, trying not to cling too obviously to the trunk, when he gets there? Exciting times!
Josh, if you're reading this, how about a cartoon of all the little warmie monkeys lined up on the CAGW branch of the Tree of Science, with a couple of "M"s (take your pick) halfway through sawing it off?
ZBH - Thanks for your cut and paste on JohnH, really deep and meaningful stuff. And your comments on the topic of the post are....?
You are a troll and a bore and clearly lack any scientific credentials whatsoever. Again, ever published in the scientific PRL? No, didn't think so. No doubt you will repond with some obtuse and asinine comment, however this will be the last comment from me on you.
Rick Bradford
First Harrabin, then Pearce, Monbiot, now Black, all negotiating furiously to try to re-invent themselves as people who have been in the 'rational' and even-handed camp all along.
Yes, you are right. It is amusing to compare that to the various stages of the Kubler-Ross model model of Grief. Some seem to be in stage 3, as in the case of of those you list above, at least one in stage 5 (Judith Curry) with many still in stage 1 such as Joe Romm. As for our pet Troll, what can I say? Do Trolls know when they are wrong and so have the potential for grief -- beyond giving it? Probably not.
ZDB, excellent post on JohnH, as impenetrable as the Oracle of Delphi to the non-cognescenti, but I'm sure it's a penetrating insight. Keep up the good work. Although I would make one small criticism, and that is it is normal in written English to put quotes (that's inverted commas not comma) around things you're, well, quoting. If you do that it makes it much clearer. Very useful contribution, thanks. One other thing, if you wanted Andrew Montford to delete JohnH's post yesterday, why did you put it back up today? Odd.
As for Roger Black and George Monbiot, they're too deep into this stuff to change course, I believe everyone who's been trumpeting the CAGW meme is seeing a sudden dive in the political will to carry out their batty instructions and reduce CO2 output. Some of them are standing back and re-evaluating their position, and are being castigated for breaking ranks, like Roger Black, but as he is really an environmental activists he won't have his Damacene moment. George is a different matter, he's, well, excitable and jumps to conclusions, which he later retracts. What they're all praying for is a huge disaster to get them back on course, without that the political interest will continue to decline as the cost and impracticality of reducing carbon emissions is grasped by the politicos. Without the big money pouring in the immense propoganda machine will be dismantled as the chancers move on to other schemes to part the public from their hard earned cash.
Good Bishop - are you now the last Earthly denizen to care what Joe says? I was otherwise convinced he was considered a nutter by the fleshy hordes of this orb, and that nothing that expressed from his cranium->pie hole connection was worth comment.
Assure us we need not bother further with his nutterisms.
Meanwhile the same old same old government visionaries are peddling the same old same old material:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/go-science/climatescience
...oops they forgot to mention the MWP (again)....
Is that domain (bis.gov.uk) named for our esteemed Bishop?
There does seem to have been a shift in reporting at the BBC. On Beakfast News this morning they were reporting on the huge windfarm off kent and how it was being turned on today the majority of the comments from viewers were negative about subsidies, reliability, productivity, etc... We would never have heard this a few months ago.
The cynic in me thinks it's just a temporary thing to 'balance' the reporting while the BBC review is going on. Once the review is over expect normal service to resume.
I wait to be suprised..... could be a long wait though!
I contribute every now and then on hudsons blog and have to say that the debates on his blog are much more civilised than any of this on blacks or harribins blogs. In fact those two blogs are nearly impossible to hold a civilised debate because of how ugly the contributors get in support of their religion!!!
It is funny those, watching black getting a whipping in the blog comments :) never fear though, when I checked last night the cavalry was starting to arrive to restore his religious faith!
Mailman
Whoa and again whoa......the agenda, it seems to me, is to protect one's rear end. Is it just me or does anybody else wonder why these volte face are occurring when there is a review on the balance of science reporting on the BBC ?
Mr Black is the altar boy who has upset one of the evangelists of his religion. He can now say to his bosses some thing like ...'HOW DARE You suggest I am not giving a balanced review of climate ? Have I not just published an article on the non disappearance of the Arctic? Have I not just been castigated by the Holy Romm Empire ?".
After the 'review' , he will return to the altar to the strains of Amazing Grace....'I was once was lost but now I'm found' and talk about how god favours the doubting Thomas on his return to the fold.....
The BBC, even this morning in talking about the money pit wind farm off the coast of Kent, even brought out a 'sceptical' Professor who suggested that maybe we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket.
Its all a bit too late. Let them cast off the religion and cry ' I have seen the light, and climate science is a house built on sand'.
That's the only way I'll believe the likes of Mr s Black and Harrabin, who let us remember are members of the Mustelidae.. and have eyes like an out house rodent looking for the main chance....
I
FAO Geronimo,
you have appeared to conflated Roger Harrabin with Richard Black into the former 400m runner and now BBC presenter Roger Black. It tickled me.
The BBC seem to be stepping away from blind acceptance of the way it reports CAGW. I don't think that it is they now don't believe - they do, but it is more to do with the growth in public scepticism. The BBC have simply become sensitive to public criticism on the way it reports climate science.
Personally, Richard Balck is beyond redemption..
He carefully implies that sceptics have NOT been on the receiving end of this type of abuse for years, in my experience" he says warmists don't do that..
A nice bit of plausible deniability, if his article is questioned..
Personally I'm going to think of as many example as I can, of abuse onto sceptics..
Chris Landesea (IPCC), Dr Vicent Gray (IPCC) for example, or Plimer, even Judith Curry, Pielke (only 'lukewarm' so lots of abuse for being off catastrophic message), Lindzen, journalists like Booker, Delingpole, Jo Nova.. (who Richard referes to as an australian female blogger (won't mention her name in case a bbc reader, can go and look her up)
That was i the article of Richard Blacks, why are men sceptical, with a nice little attempted link to phsycoligically damaged in childhood! (beyond contempt)
Anthony Watts had a stalker not long ago, Did Richard think to see what sort of abuse Athony Watts has had , over YEARS, or Mc Intyre. oor we has the eco activist taking hostages, and getting shot, becaus he could not take the fact that 'saving the planet ' was not happening. The BBC have a share of the responsibility, in cranking up the catastrophy messae, thatthe weker minded members of society, reacted like this.. Similar to the family that killed thgier children, and commited suicide (argentina?) because of 'fears' of global warming..
As the politicians back away from CO2 taxation, ther may be a lOT more of this from the more minority CAGW extremists (think what a few animal rights activists got up to, they were only saving theanimals? what might a disaointed desperate activist do that cares about saving the planet.. Thus Greenpeace, WWF, AL Gore and the BBC al have had a part in promoting the 'doomed' global warming, must act nowmedia message.
I'm not going to email them to him, he seems abit 'sensitive' just staing on topc I'm going to post it into his BBC blog..
As I imagine any other BBC licence paying members of the public , here might be inclined to do..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/09/something_new_and_not_altogeth.html#comments
Note, the BBC Mods, HAVE LET everything I've commented on through today...
Maybe Richard has been stuck in the same ivory tower as George Monbiot, in exalted, celebtiry consensus, BBC eco actvist status. and just hadn't looked or listened to anybody else..
Because after all, all those green lobbyists, lkike Romm, have been whispering to him (and the BBC) they are just quacks and climate change deniars''' who would wqant to be linked to that.
Barry ..calm down calm down.....I agree with everything you've just said....remember he's a journalist/weasel !
There's a review on at the BBC at the moment about science reporting, and the head rat has already announced his departure.
Mr's Black and Harribin are only protecting their jobs,by doing what all weasels would do..use weasel words and weasel strategies.
Its so funny !
I've been commenting on BBC blogs ( a LOT), since Climategate
(when is the official annivesary 18, 19, 20th ? Nov ?)
They are still at the shuffling the chairs around stage.
The good titanic ship AGW 'Consensus BBC is still on course..
I want to get it's engines into neutral (impartial), the sooner the better.
I just put a LONG post onto RB Earth watch..
I would email Richard, but he seems abit sensitive about emails at the moment ;)
I might ask the Bishop if it is worthy of another guest post..
(editing and shortening required- plus links, I have much less trouble,at the BBC without links)
At the VERY least (if he is reading) I expect Josh do do me a personal surreal climate /fantasy climate cartoon.. ;)
My wife want to know what to gewt me for my 40th/Christmas!!
(more humour),
Why do the 'warmists' have no sense of humour - must be safe to use THAT word, as RICHARD BLACK just used it. ie identifying himself as NOT being one.....
What is the world coming to.
I was a bit of a very long comment ( I know you all love me for that ;) )
But my comment MADE IT in.....
Any thoughts.. (comment 59#)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/09/something_new_and_not_altogeth.html#comments
I have been writing on the BBC blogs since Climate gate. (very many people have told me NOT to Bother, BBC beyond redemption) Perhaps in a similar way to Julian (Shubs' article about the Guardian)
Believe it or not that was the SHORT version.. So many examples, evidence links that I could have put in....
I didn't even start on Green pAeace - Angry Kid propaganda. Copenhagen propganda, Gren Peace ' We Know where you live'
Green peace, make sceptical journilsts scared - make brand sceptic' toxic'
My track record at the BBC:
This could be the MAKING of a REBORN BBC.
If they could pause refelct look disspassionately with impartyial eyes, and just think for a momnet have we been caught up in an extraordinary popular mass delusion of crowds ( a modern end of the world cult, with computer models) that wil be writtem about for decades..
Lindzen:
“The Earth's climate has always shown natural variation …
There is nothing to suggest that any warming we are seeing now is not part of that natural cycle.”
“Every generation has had an apocalyptic myth.”
“The language of climate change is becoming … religious”
lots of quotes... i might have got a bit caried away with some of themat the BBC..
http://www.abd.org.uk/resources/quotes/gwt.htm
I only google searched for LIndzens quote on the back of Bookers _ 'the Real Global Warming Scandal'
and found that link. (my copy is with a memberof theGreen Party)
Confused
"the Holy Romm Empire"
LOL!
James P
....only to used with attribution ! You gotta larf ....
I did a post earlier this week that discussed that Romm thread on Black--and compared it to a thread on McKibben at over at WUWT.
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/09/19/gangster-climate-talk/
Confused
I'm sure I will.. (use it and larf)
While I'm sure we're stuck with AGW for a while yet, characters like Romm and Pachauri make it easier to bear. Their bile and incompetence undermine the cause more effectively than we ever could...
Keith Kloor
Your (linked) piece is the first time I have seen parallels drawn between WUWT and Romm’s site, but Shub’s reply seems apposite:
“If Watts had cleaned his thread of intemperate remarks, he might appear angelic. Romm appears angelic, to the godheads of AGW, in turn, by deleting polite reasoned comments which ask uncomfortable questions. Which version is better?”
You interpret this as “making excuses for Watts”, which simply makes you appear as an apologist for Romm. The debates on WUWT are mostly intelligent and good humoured, both rare qualities on CP, in my experience.
the BBC have just REMOVED my comment 59# for further consideration........
Lots of commentors at the BBC agreeing..
I'd post it here (but it is quite long) so would need the Bishop's permission?