I’d Rather Stick My Hand in a Bag of Amphetamine-injected Rattlesnakes Than Put My Trust in Tonight’s BBC Panorama documentary on ‘Global Warming’

Let’s just remind ourselves, shall we, why the BBC is constitutionally incapable of reporting on global warming in a fair, balanced or indeed honest way. On 26 January 2006, the BBC’s not-notably-sceptical Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin organised a conference at BBC TV Centre called Climate Change – The Challenge To Broadcasting. (Hat tip: Nick Mabbs)

Perhaps it should really have been called The Challenge To Impartiality. It was co-hosted by the director of television Jana Bennett, the director of news Helen Boaden and held under the auspices of the BBC and two environmental lobby groups – The International Broadcasting Trust and the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme. The keynote speaker was the fanatically warmist ex-Royal Society President, Robert May, who proceded to assure the audience of around 30 key BBC staff and 30 invited guests, most of them environmental activists, that – as Bob Carter puts it in his superb Climate: The Counter Consensus – “the science supporting global warming was so certain that it was the BBC’s public duty to cease providing airtime to alternative viewpoints.” The BBC has been hideously biased in its coverage of AGW ever since.

Tonight’s Panorama is a case in point. Here is a blog by the programme’s producer Mike Rudin describing the piece of glib Warmist propaganda he is foisting on the licence-fee paying public this evening.

See if you can spot the weaselry in this summing-up paragraph:

There is genuine uncertainty and disagreement about the exact scale and speed of human-induced global warming and crucially what we should do about it. But I was surprised to find how much agreement there is on the fundamental science.

Yep, what Rudin is trying to do is revive Al Gore’s discredited idea that there is a “Consensus” on global warming.

And here’s the cheaty way he goes about demonstrating it.

He sends his reporter Tom Heap out to solicit the views of various “experts” with a chart called a Wall of Uncertainty.

(Top Gear may have its “Cool Wall”, but we have built a “Wall of Certainty” – Rudin confides to readers of his blog, showing this isn’t just a serious programme. It’s FUN too).

The expert panel is pretty evenly balanced. For the Warmists Professor Bob Watson, Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute. For the sceptics, Bjorn Lomborg and Professor John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. What Lomborg and Christy don’t appreciate until its far too late – ’twas ever thus with the BBC – is that the entire exercise is a total stitch up. They are there to give the illusion that all sides are being consulted. But note how loaded are the questions which they are asked:

“How certain are you that mankind is warming the climate?”

“How certain are you that C02 and the other things are greenhouse gases?”

“How certain are you that we are emitting more CO2 which is one of the greenhouse gases?”

Naturally the answer to all these questions, even from the most ardent sceptic Christy, is a “very.” That’s because there’s really no other honest answer to any of them.

But what does this prove? Absolutely nothing other than that on the subject of climate change, you’d be better off sticking your hand in a bag of amphetamine-injected rattlesnakes and hope not to be bitten than you would trusting the BBC.

This disgraceful programme – and you should be ashamed Jeremy Vine, for giving it your imprimatur by introducing such dross – quite deliberately misrepresents the sceptic position using a Straw Man argument, before drawing conclusions about the state of the AGW which are entirely dishonest.

Here is what Rudin thinks the programme means:

Contrary to some of the newspaper headlines and blogs that suggest all global warming science is a con, they agreed that mankind is causing the planet to warm up.

Note that use of the straw man again. NOBODY believes that “all global warming science is a con.” NO ONE. Because if they did, when you think about it, that would mean discounting the expertise of climate scientists like Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, which obviously no climate sceptic is ever likely to do being as they are trusted, revered gurus of the climate realist movement.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Global warming’ was always far too important to be left to the scientists
  2. Only morons, cheats and liars still believe in Man-Made Global Warming
  3. Oh no, not another unbiased BBC documentary about ‘Climate Change’…
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

6 thoughts on “I’d rather stick my hand in a bag of amphetamine-injected rattlesnakes than put my trust in tonight’s BBC Panorama documentary on ‘Global Warming’”

  1. James W says:29th June 2010 at 10:57 amThe BBC is a scandalous organisation crammed with partial leftists and PC-warriors all intent on spitting out the propaganda of their pet causes and denigrating rational arguments against such.

    Whilst simultaneously bleeding the public purse to a huge degree. No doubt indulging in mutual sniggering sessions over the fact that the public is paying for their determination to brainwash them.

    In the words of King Edward VIII, “Something must be done”.

  2. Nick Mabbs says:29th June 2010 at 2:58 pmJames W

    What do you mean – partial ? They’re fully paid up libtards !

    Or they thought they were ‘fully paid up’; it’s nice to see that their Pension Scheme is crumbling too, as mine has, thanks to Broon’s pick-pocketing and Duncan-Dohnut’s
    £6,000+ mugging.

  3. forthurst says:29th June 2010 at 3:59 pmRudkin? Rudkin? Oh yes, wasn’t he the producer of two BBC programmes that ‘validated’ the NIST hypothesis that World Trade Centre 7 (Salamon building) collapsed spontaneously due to ‘fires’ without any additional assistance from demolition charges, an event reported by BBC World correspondent Jane Stanley a full 23 minutes before the event and with the aforementioned building still standing in the background?

    I think you will need to concede victory to the new science as espoused by the BBC; either that or you will have to view many more of that ilk for punishment.

  4. martin mcleod says:30th June 2010 at 5:41 pmAs someone who rarely bothers with the mainstream press, I was greatly heartened to hear your views on this Panorama programme.
    Occasionally, I watch iPlayer to see how low the standards on the BBC have become.
    I notice that Countryfile has been shifted to a primetime spot with many presenters and a focus on BS issues. Didn’t it use to come on at Sunday lunchtime featuring a man with a dog?

    That Simon whatshisname of Springwatch fame almost looks embarrassed when he has to read his global warming agenda scripts.
    A recent alarmist piece he did on the imminent disappearance of the Snow Hare due to global warming would have pleased the great Al Gore muchly.


  5. JLK says:2nd July 2010 at 6:37 pmFor those of you who are worried that the momentum from the AGW fraud will allow govts, (especially the US) to pass economically devastating legislation, or those who just like to wallow in “schadenfreude”, Al Gore is now being investigated for an attempted rape charge in my home town.

    The case was dropped in 2007 because the massage therapist, who unfortunately for Al was legit, did not show up for the hearings. It has now been reopened by the local police. Of course Fat Albert is protesting his innocence but the complainant has solid evidence she has saved including one of those nasty “stains” a la Monica on her clothes.
    She did not pursue the prosecution at the time …get this….because her liberal friends (we few conservatives call my city “The People’s Republic of Portland”) convinced her that if Al was taken down Global Warming would consume the world.

    Needless to say the MSM is doing their best to ignore this but it’s only a matter of time before they are forced to face the story. The local press is covering it big time because they were previously caught covering up stories about local Lib politicians.

  6. John of Kent says:3rd July 2010 at 12:31 pmWell, Al Gore has done his best to rape tax payers and ordinary citizens everywhere for the past 20 years so why not rape his masseuse if he thinks he can get away with it. Being a sexual predator goes along with his delusions of grandeur, manipulating the media, general public and politicians and compulsive lying. He should be locked up.

Comments are closed.

Climategate: How they all squirmed – James Delingpole

Lies of every colour

Among the many great amusements of the Climategate scandal are the myriad imaginative excuses being offered by the implicated scientists and their friends in the MSM as to why this isn’t a significant story. Here are some of the best:

Most Unexpectedly Honourable Response: The Guardian’s eco-columnist George Monbiot

Say what you like about the Great Moonbat, the heliophobic Old Stoic is the ONLY member of the Climate-Fear-Promotion camp to have delivered a proper apology.

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

Most brazen “doth protest too much” defence: www.realclimate.org

Real Climate is the website established and run by a claque of scientist friends of Michael Mann – inventor of the discredited Hockey Stick curve. They are also closely associated with the crowd at the disgraced Climate Research Unit. They clearly feel no apology is necessary:

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.

Well, boys, if you say so….

Least convincing “The Dog Ate My Homework”excuse: Professor Phil ‘It was a typing error’ Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit

Many of the potentially incriminating Climategate emails were the work of CRU’s director Phil Jones, including the infamous one where he discussed “trick” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. But it’s OK. As he tells his sympathetic audience at the Guardian it was a perfectly honest mistake:

“The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste,”

Which does make you wonder how the sentence would have read had he just had a little longer to type it correctly. “Hiding the sausage?” “Heeding the decline?” “Playing a straight bat and keeping everything above board and scientifically scrupulous as we always do here at CRU”. Yes, that’ll be it – the last one. But you can see how easily the slip was made.

Most Disingenuous Cop-Out: Andrew Revkin of the New York Times

For years Andrew Revkin has been using the NYT – aka Pravda – to push the Al-Gore-approved AGW narrative so kindly embellished for him by likeminded scientist chums at parti pris institutions like CRU. But, like any decent reporter, Revkin is above all else a principled seeker-after-truth. That’s why he had absolutely no hesitation in furnishing NYT readers with every juicy detail of the biggest science scandal of the age.

Or at least he would have done, had it not been for the following problem, expressed on his Dot Earth blog.

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.

Damn right, Andrew. Don’t you be troubling your readers with any of that “damning revelations” nonsense. If only journalists had shown similar integrity at Watergate, why, good old Richard Nixon might have stayed in power long enough to make America truly great.

Most Haughtily Dismissive “Nothing To See Here” Apologia: George Marshall

Here is George Marshall putting us right in the Guardian’s Comment Is Free section:

Leaked email climate smear was a PR disaster for UEA

There was no evidence of conspiracy among climate scientists in the leaked emails – so why was the University of East Anglia’s response so pathetic?

George who? Fortunately the great Bishop Hill has been doing some digging. According to the Guardian, “George Marshall is the founder and director of projects at the Climate Outreach and Information Network. He posts regularly to the blog climatedenial.org”. But as Bishop Hill has discovered it’s rather more sinister than that. This COIN charity has been funded to the tune of £700,000 over two years by DEFRA (US readers note: the dismal branch of the UK government responsible for murdering livestock, destroying agriculture, persecuting farmers etc) in order to:

“profoundly change the attitude of rank and file union members; generating visible collective reduction action, establishing a social norm for personal action, and creating a persuasive synergy and cross over between personal action, work-placed programmes such as ‘Greening the workplace’, and the emissions reduction targets of employers.”

So not so much a case of Comment Is Free then. More a case of Comment Is Very Expensive If You’re A Taxpayer

Most Ludicrously Biased Environment Correspondent, Even By The Ludicrously Biased Standards of Environment Correspondents: the BBC’s Roger Harrabin.

When Harrabin (rather reluctantly one imagines) broke the Climategate story to BBC listeners a few days ago, guess where he turned for authoritative independent analysis of its significance. Yes, that’s right: to those completely unbiased scientists at Real Climate (above). They confirmed Harrabin’s suspicions that this wasn’t – as that “small minority” of pesky sceptics had been saying – a searing indictment of the  AGW-promotion lobby’s dubious practices, but just a routine criminal break-in.

Now that he’s had a bit more time to digest the story, though, Harrabin has realised that the story is much, MUCH more important than that. Yes: it has much to tell us, he concludes, about the issue of data protection.

But this affair will surely change things: From now, scientific teams and peer-review groups will be much more cautious about how they word e-mails.

Researchers at CRU complain that no one will want to do collaborative work if their private e-mail conversations may later be revealed. But many commercial corporate organisations at risk of hacking have developed ways of communicating that don’t leave them open to sabotage.

Thanks Roger. It’s thanks to responsible, studiedly neutral reporting like that that we’ve all come so fervently to trust the BBC.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate 2.0: the Warmists’ seven stages of grief
  2. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  3. Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science
  4. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil

3 Responses to “Climategate: how they all squirmed”

  1. d says:November 26, 2009 at 10:09 pmWhat an ignorant fool you really are sir.Cleary all you have to say is what suits your agenda. Skeptic? HAH try going to a true skeptic site such as http://www.skeptic.com/ where the word actually has some meaning outside of a petit clique that you claim to represent. Where science is actually discussed rationally. No-one’s squirming in this entire debate

    Need I remind you that we have one planet with which to risk this issue. We do nothing and get it wrong about climate change and we’ve lost nothing but get if we’re proven right and have done nothing guess what, like the planetary atmosphere of venus we’re dead.

    We’re as dead as your ability to be objective, and that pointless lazy journalists such as yourself try to incite some false agenda to suit your own twisted view on the matter is quite frankly dispicable.

  2. Marc says:November 26, 2009 at 10:11 pmHaving read the other offerings, particularly fron Realclimate who are in the ‘Lalalala, can’t hear anything!!’ zone, the only one who has a shred of decency does appear to be Monbiot. And God knows he’s a boring bastard at the best of times. Let us hope this is the first breach in the wall of PC climatology.
  3. Global Warming Hoax Enabler: The Lancet « Gathering of Eagles: NY says:November 27, 2009 at 3:54 am[…] Climategate:  How They All Squirmed […]