Wednesday
Mar142012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Jo Nova on Richard Black
Mar 14, 2012 BBC Climate: CRU BBC watchers will want to take a look at Jo Nova's analysis of how the corporation reported Climategate as compared to how it reported Fakegate.
A must-read.
Reader Comments (21)
By his own actions Black is a climate activist, an alarmist to trade, and not a news reporter.
A great consensus man of little consequence.
Mike at Scottish Sceptics put together a useful table to compare and contrast climategate and desperatefakegate which is also worth a gander.
As I have said before, what we get from Richard Black, Leo Hickman, Andy Revkin etc., is just a symptom of the problem. The the root of the problem is that they have gone native with the thermageddonists in CRU, NOAA, GISS, and the IPCC. They are not true journalists, just environmental activists who write stories for newspapers and their ill-informed editors in the BBC.
Brilliant article and well worth a read.
People like Richard Black just don't get it.
They know that we have read the E-Mails C1 & C2 and yet they claim there was nothing untowards going on. A hundred enquiries would not alter the fact that we KNOW that Phil Jones and the team are corrupt. We know that they conspired to distort the science and to stifle opposing views. We know, we know we know.
As long as Phil Jones and Peter Gleick are still employed, we know that they are part of the corruption. Yes Richard, WE KNOW!
"They know that we have read the E-Mails C1 & C2 and yet they claim there was nothing untowards going on. A hundred enquiries would not alter the fact that we KNOW that Phil Jones and the team are corrupt. We know that they conspired to distort the science and to stifle opposing views. We know, we know we know."
We know, pesadia, but I rather doubt that they are trying to persuade us. Black is addressing the wider populace who don't know, in the hope that the uninformed can be kept in ignorance.
lapogus: "...and desperatefakegate which is also worth a gander. )
"gander" ... yes! Never let a good old word die. I'd forgotten it (from my youth) but will now use it.
"They know that we have read the E-Mails C1 & C2 and yet they claim there was nothing untowards going on."
Which makes you wonder if they've read them.
I'm very suspicions of anyone who has read them and still claims there's nothing wrong. They must have an ulterior motive to continue pumping out the party line IMHO.
Nial.
Excellent report from Jo Nova.
Roger Carr
lapogus: "...and desperatefakegate which is also worth a gander. )
"gander" ... yes! Never let a good old word die. I'd forgotten it (from my youth) but will now use it.
Ella Fitzgerald also used it:
"When I first threw you a gander,
I was willing to philander..."
I think it was n a Jerome Kern song.
We now all know that the BBC has given up completely on unbiased reporting. But Black has taken biased reporting to the extreme. At least with regard to CAGW. The man is a disgrace to the journalist profession. And what is galling is that we, as licence payers are funding him. If he were honest he would take a job with Greenpeace, or Friends of the Earth. But probably the pay would not be as good as the Beeb's.
Jo Nova hits the nail on the head when she points out that while there was a blackout (sorry!) on the content of the Climategate emails, and a focus on the release mechanisms, with Gleickgate the opposite occurred. All the focus was on the content, and the sleazy way it was obtained was hardly mentioned. Even when the *star* document was declared a fake, the emphasis was unchanged.
What a grubby and unprincipled lot environmental 'reporters' in the MSM are.
Black is not just any activist eco-warrior journo, he is the Threatener in Chief, as shown by a quick Google search.
In unrelated matters, I wonder how much of what we read from green hacks is just the usual old rubbish recycled with a slight changing of words.
@omnologos "what we read from green hacks is just the usual old rubbish recycled with a slight changing of words"
One of Black's more insidious practices is to put up twitter links, thereby granting the imprimatur of the BBC to third party sources -- recycling at its finest and a neat side step of the diligence requirements for third party content ( http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/2/17/science-media-centre-and-the-bbc-guidelines.html).
what is it with the BBC science staff? I would say that more than half the stories on their website are not important!
And as for their new "science editor" (BA Geography) we were promised a "new level of analysis." I would like to ask..er....where?
I saw Palab Ghosh on TV reporting on the solar storm. terrible. And this mediocre stuff is the product of how many years of 'experience?' and how many licence fee payers money?
Richard Black - a bit about me:
http://blackswhitewash.com/2012/01/05/richard-black-influencing-world-policy/
http://blackswhitewash.com/2012/01/11/man-of-mystery-2/
You can see our beloved Richard live tonight on the hinternet:
http://blackswhitewash.com/2012/03/14/richard-black-going-native/
The BBCs science editors 'new level of analysis' showed up today.
Shukman did a piece for the 1 o clock TV about animal imports for lab testing.
The BBC News website also carried the report - by an unnamed reporter that included quotes from ..er...Tom Fielden of the BBC today prog!
The animal rights Q & A section was done by Fergus Walsh.
A new level of analysis indeed!
Breaking: Our Man has told thw Twitterati that he doesn't want people to be genetically engineered to combat climate change.
It seems he's found a limit in his own alarmism!!
pesadia - the thing is their not bothered about what you and I know. Their pieces are designed purely to keep the faithful onside. Nothing to see here - move on.
During a presentation, a few months ago, a believer challenged me over CG1 (CG2 came out a few weeks later) and just trotted out the excuses straight from the CAGW central crib-sheet and what he had gleaned from articles by the likes of Black. Taken out of context etc etc. I asked him to quote an email that was taken out of context - I asked him to quote any email. It became obvious to all there that he had never read a single email. I asked him why he felt qualified to comment if he hadn't read them - jusr bluster followed. These people are Black's choir.
Was he ever a journalist that went native or was he an activist who infiltrated the trade?
The Jo Nova piece was fully up to her usual standard - excellent, but I guess Joanne's piece won't be read by the AGW faithful either. They should be.
Black has recently tweeted a link to this:
http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0312-hance_mcardle_climate.html
It is basically a plea to all journalists to ignore any dissent as we all really know that catastrophe is coming.
It almost makes Black seem reasonable (almost).
Black, we know from the leaked e-mails is 'the Teams ' reliable go to boy at the BBC , and that tells you all you really need to know about the 'quality ' and 'fairness' of his work.
It's not just the BBC.
Even "The Engineer" starts off with the "truth" that increased CO2 = catastrophic climate change.
Then relies on the IPCC as it's appeal to justify this "truth".
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/opinion/comment/we-need-facts-not-nationalistic-sentiment-or-party-politics/1011998.article#commentsubmitted
And I thought that Engineers were one of the last few bastions of sanity.
All the BBC haters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA
Has anybody on here actually written into points of view or that Ray Snoddy thing on BBC News 24
And actually complained about bias about Glenick and Paul Nurse