Black tongue-lashed

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?

Comments

[Mailman]

Oh Barry, you must have said something inconvenient aye for them to remove your post. Either that or the cavalry riding to blacks rescue have started to complain about pro skeptical posts?

Mailman

[Barry Woods]

An Update: posted this.

Hard to ignore the intolerant, when they behave as Richard has described...
The BBC premoderate comments, they though about mine for some time..

They ALLOWED my comments, for a number of hours
(presumably -OK followed all the house rules, etc..)

Then, I have them removeded for further consideration.
I can only presume, because the BBC has receieved compliants, about my comments..

Fair, enough, they must do their job

Over at Romms - Climate Progress we have this now.

Former correspondent and editor explains the drop in quality of BBC’s climate coverage

Shocker: For 2011, BBC has "explicitly parked climate change in the category 'Done That Already, Nothing New to Say'."
http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/22/bbc-climate-change-coverage-mark-brayne/

A quick look at the comments show that commentors there are complianing about Richard Black 'whining' about Romms previous article, and are refering to this very artcle in this blog..

It looks like yours truly, and others are being criticised quite heavily, and they complain about the BBC moderators, allowing these comments....

(they seem to think RB blog is a hotbed of sceptics - shouldn't be allowed......)

Now the BBC, thought my comments were OK..

Wonder where all the complaints came from?

Remind me WHAT was this article about again?!

I would cherry pick the comments over there, but why not look for yourselves....

THey seem a bit 'unhappy' with Roger Harrabin as well, my sympathies Roger.

Hope you are well.

[kkloor]

James P, stop cracking me up. You're too funny: me, an apologist for Romm? Even he would chortle at that one. As for those good intelligent and good humored threads at WUWT, yeah, that was much in evidence at the one I cited.

Puhleeze, people. Don't be so hypocritical. Call it like you see it. Remove your ideological blinders.

[Barry Woods]

mailman - Yes the cavalry has arrived....

They are not that bright, for some reason, they think sceptics can't/won't/are not able to read 'warmist' (Richard Black's description ;) ) blogs

http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/22/bbc-climate-change-coverage-mark-brayne/

Romms boys have been sent over to Richard Black's blog, enjoy the comments...

[confused]

So the 'Brown Shirts' have gone after dear old Richard have they. Lets hope he enjoys the visit as much as the German Jews did on Kristal Nacht.. Ernst and his SA friends are out to get you tricky dickie... and the storm troopers always get their Mann....

So sorry couldn't resist the Ernst Röhm reference.......but wait is there a nugget of truth here..

'From 1931 the SA was led by a radical anti-capitalist Ernst Röhm' pretty apt referece don'tcha think ?

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O48-Brownshirt.html

For 'Brown Shirts' read 'Green'

[confused]

Just one more thing.....is this the start of another 'Night of the Long Knives'

[Simon Hopkinson]

I suppose I should have expected it.. one of my posts on Paul Hudson's blog regarding long-range forecasts has been "referred for further consideration." I believe it's probably because I expressed my opinion of Richard Black from my perspective as a tax payer. Whoopsy, my goof.

Fortunately, being increasingly familiar with the BBC's moderation policy of late, I decided to take a copy of what I posted before I submitted it to the ether. Lest it be gone forever, here it is in full:

theskyisnotfalling [blog contributor], I like Piers Corbyn. Though I'm sure many think he's a bit mad-professorial, and a few will think him rude (me included, actually, after his interjections at the Guardian debate a short while back), I thoroughly enjoyed Black's blog post which you linked, for all the wrong reasons and most particularly for Black's "So there you are. The forecasts are out; let battle commence."

There is no way to cut it differently, this time. Corbyn was most certainly correct and the Met Office was completely wrong. Or, to use the Met Office's own bet-hedging number, the Met got it right to the tune of 0.14:1.

I don't care if both the Met Office and Corbyn just threw dice and Corbyn got lucky, but I do care that Black's ridicule of Corbyn is being funded by my taxes, particularly when the historical evidence of Corbyn's skill in long-range forecasting, contrasted with the Met Office's skill in the same, is so much in Corbyn's favour.

I'm weary with contesting Black's biases, which in a very elemental sense run against both tenet and mandate of the BBC (written and spirit), but weary or not I am nonetheless sickened by his incessant and logically fallacious appeals to authority, his base disregard of evidence which does not suit his ideological position and, more than anything else, the lack of journalistic cynicism or suspicion of scientific motive that his ideological predisposition causes. His offensive attitude towards Corbyn and NOT towards Sligo and the Met Office is just one example of this, but there have been many more, before and since.

[Barry Woods]

I sent Richard Blac an email (not what you lot might expect.....)
he thanked me for it, and appreciated my comments (and I totally believe him, in his sincerity)

------------------------------------
In DEFENCE of Richard Black at Romm's

Hi Richard

I made a repsonse to someone called mapleleaf, at Climate Progress.

'MapleLeaf, also alerted the commentors at Climate progress (comment 27#), to go over to your blog....
He does NOT like debate, thinks the BBC moderate poorly..... (ie people he disagrees with get heard)

see his comment 33#, 34#, 66#, 67#, 85# and Romm's replies to him.....

http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/22/bbc-climate-change-coverage-mark-brayne/#comment-298241

Mapleleaf comments at a LOT of warmist blogs, most recently:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/christopher-monckton-congressional-testimony-climate-scientists-respond/#comments
Bart's blog is a civilised place, he pops up at Keith Kloors - Collide a Scape, and other blogs


IF it appears at Climate Progress...... my comment, to 'mapleleaf'

86# barry Woods says (this emails was deleted at CLIMATE PROGRESS - romm's place)
Your comment is awaiting moderation
September 27, 2010, 7:38 am

What do you suggest Richard do, self censor, advise the mods to 'delete' comment. If he does not do what you approve, of what then?........

The BBC ALLOWS anyone to comment as long as they follow the House Rules.
They have a public charter that is accountable to the public, ultimately.

I comment at the Richard Black Earthwatch BBC blog. It is MY BBC, as much as it is anyone elses in the UK.

I guess that would make me a 'deniar' in your eyes..

Why not say a fellow member of the human race, that does not subscribe to the more catstrophic predictions by some lobby groups, of man made global warming due to CO2. (ie lukewarm)

Would you call me a DENIAR to my face (I have experienced it)
Would you call me a DENIAR in front of work colleagues, or in a church
Would you call me a DENIAR in front of my family, my children and friends?
Would you go into my schools and educate my children to call me a DENIAR merely it seems for asking questions that go unanswered..

But it is ok on the internet, by someone that hides behind 'mapleleaf' rather than be brave enough to use their real name.

I criticise Richard Black, a LOT, but to defend him (as from that quote, he appears to have the best intentions)...

He said:

"While welcoming a diversity of voices, we must make sure that we do not conflate self selecting audience responses with a broad audience opinion"

Perhaps, the BBC is realising, that that self selecting group, is NOT the sceptics, but the loud shouting, vitriolic voices of catstrophic, man made global awarming alarmism, that are actually very small in number vs public and scientific opinion.

------------------------

A vocal few alarmists like Maple leaf and romm, do NOT WANT ANY diversity of voices, they would silence them, they also have had a disproportionate coverage for years... because they shout people down, with sceptic, deniar, and more... David Bellamy?!!! - one ofthe FIRST environmentalists, a 'DENIAR

Look at the sceptic alerts... (a small example)
A look at the Campaign Against Climate Change website (well funded, establishment figures, MP's MEP')
YET, the discussion forums, echo with tumbleweed, very few comments, a few people activist talking amongst themselves.

CACC forums:
http://portal.campaigncc.org/

Best Regards

Barry Woods

[Barry Woods]

It is hard to have a debate, if the rich and powerful, deny members of the public any sort of voice, and shout them down. Climate Progress deleted my comment defending Richard Black at the BBC, as if it NEVER exisited....... (86# above)

Climate Audit, Jo Nova, Watts Up, Bishop Hill, rattle their paypal Tip Jars, occasionally to help pay for bandwidth..

Who has the well funded propaganda machinary again?

Climate Progress is funded by: The Centre for American Progress Action Fund
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/
Lots of staff and funding:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/aboutus/staff
Lots of jobs as well:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/aboutus/jobs

Dr Joe Romm is a very establishment figure,
http://climateprogress.org/about/

Dr Joseph Romm was ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY for energy efficiency and renewable energy
during the Clinton Administration, where he directed $1 billion in research, development, demonstration
and deployment of clean energy and Carbon-mitigation technology..

ROMM believes, so he will deny others a voice, and try to supress those that are off his message....... even a 'nobody' like me.

Roger Harrabin had his Al Gore moment: (3 years ago)

“And after the interview he [Al Gore] and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of CLIMATE SCEPTIC TRAITOR.

Jo Nova, mentions another scientists experience at the hands of Al Gore:

“Hello, Richard, yes, exactly, and you are catching up fast on the world in 1990. Around then, an intolerant culture was established that scorned anyone who so much as asked difficult questions. Some eminent scientists were sacked. Al Gores staffers attacked Fred Singer so viperously, that he took them to court and won. But what message did that send to the world’s scientists? You can speak your doubts on the hypothesis of man-made-catastrophe, but be prepared to spend thousands on lawyers, risk your job, and lose your friends. Singer won the battle, but Al won that war.”

At the time Al Gore was a US Senator – and became Vice -President of the USA in 1993…..
A powerful message to scientist was sent.

Yet the BBC a while back, asked sceptical bloggers for a list of sceptical scientists. Well, perhaps they were still keeping there heads down.

Wondered where the 'sceptical scientists' are, they've been keepin their heads down, the rich and powerful are in charge...
http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/22/bbc-climate-change-coverage-mark-brayne/#comment-298241

So Dr Joe Romm thinks nothing of deleting (I now appear to be permanently blocked at Climate Progress) a sceptic for defending Richard Black. Trivial I know, but demonstrates the intellectual honesty present at Climate Progress..

THE BBC are fair moderators, we should all really appreciate that, and support them (even of we disagree on occasion)