Having carefully watched the BBC “Science & Environment” news web page for several weeks now, I am inclined to identify the following as their underlying “Climate Change” reporting policy:
- No day shall pass without at least one climate-change-related link somewhere on that page
- Reporting on scientific articles supporting AGW will be strictly confined to a slight change of the original press release with the smallest and most inconsequential of doubt and criticism in the results
- Whatever Prince Charles or any other environmental celebrity has to say will be considered worthy of publication
- No such luck for anything not supporting AGW, however authoritative the source.
- Point 4 will not apply once a quarter or so, in order to demonstrate “balanced reporting”
- No climate change link will be considered too trivial to report
- There will be links to Richard Black’s blog
- There will be no link to the BBC’s own “Climate Change – The Blog of Bloom” blog. After all, it does make fun of AGW
And so there goes my licence money at work supporting the fight against the destruction of the world by evil SUV drivers…
…or their way of “showing impartiality”?
In any case, the BBC’s “Climate Change – The Blog of Bloom” is well worth an entry in one’s RSS feeds list.
And the authors there are quite humorous and far, far less the self-conscious, bordering-on-pompous, depressive types like Roger Harrabin and Richard Black.
For a couple of suggestions, start from these:
Now…can “The Blog of Bloom” really be used to demonstrate the impartiality of the BBC in the climate debate? I am afraid it cannot. See, there is no link to it, and there has never been, into the “Science and Environment” section of the BBC News website.
Russian motorists have reached the North Pole for the first time in an Arctic expedition. The new record has been set by a team of seven Russians. They set out for the Pole from the Severnaya Zemlya archipelago on two experimental Russian-made YEMELYA cars on the 20th of March, covered over 1,100 kilometres on pack ice, and reached the earth’s northern pole on Sunday, the 26th of April. The jubilant team of seasoned travellers is now receiving congratulations from across Russia.
not exactly your average SUV but still…the vehicles look quite heavy, therefore the underlying ice must have been quite solid…
Who knows why Richard Black or Roger Harrabin don’t appear interested in the effort?
Mooney’s contribution to the global consciousness contains pearls of literature like the following:
It must be the first time ever that somebody has in any way lamented somebody else’s incoming link to his blog…
Anyway…I find it telling that Mooney is surprised by the amount of traffic coming from ClimateDepot, and feels the need to write: “So Mark: Let’s keep linking to each other“.
What it is telling is that usually Mooney, like several other AGWers I have met in all these years debating the topic, cannot even contemplate providing his readers with links to non-AGW sites. Because he disagrees with their content to the point of pretending it does not actually exist.
It’s an attitude reminding at the same time of an inferiority complex, childishness, an urge to censor, and/or a fear of reading anything not singing one’s own tune, lest the virginal eyes of the AGW believers be poisoned by non-conforming writings.
Time will tell which of the above interpretations is correct.
a guest blog by Geoff Chambers
George Monbiot has just published a new blog on Guardian Environment in his long-running series: “Scientists Say It’s Even Worse Than We Thought”, quoting “the world’s most sophisticated models” devised by “the world’s finest minds” as saying that global temperatures will rise 5.2C by 2100.
What makes this particular rant interesting is his source – the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model. The final paragraph of the MIT News article which Monbiot cites reads:
This work was supported in part by grants from the Office of Science of the U.S. Dept. of Energy, and by the industrial and foundation sponsors of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.
And if you go to the website of the latter organisation, you discover that their industrial sponsors include Exxon, Shell, BP, and Total. So Monbiot no longer believes that being financed by Big Oil automatically taints your research results. Which is fine.
Monbiot is an intelligent man who has been known to admit in public to changing his mind before (on nuclear power and bio-fuels, for example). But it does mean that twenty years of trashing climate scepticism – on the grounds that its funding sources make it suspect – has to be thown in the bin.
I’ve made this point in the comments to the article, but I’m being heavily moderated on Comment is Free and most of my comments are refused without explanation. I invite your readers to go to Comment is Free and join in what should be an epic battle (or pub brawl, knowing Guardian Climate Change discussions).
Looks like milions in the UK have already been emitting much less than a whole bunch of AGWers…and without even having to change their lifestyles!
[…] The [UK Department for Energy and Climate Change] DECC, which is responsible for promoting energy efficiency in the country and is housed in Whitehall Place in London, scored a G, the lowest on a seven-point energy performance scale for its buildings […]
There is actually a more serious message there. Governments serious about climate change will be noticeable by the fact that they will stop preaching to the unwashed and concentrate on reducing emissions on a grand scale, in their buildings and facilities that is.
And it’s not even my idea…
From the BBC’s Climate Change – The Blog of Bloom
“Hitler: the green movement’s German shepherd?”
by Shanta Barley
Ever wondered why it is that Germany […] is so far ahead of the rest of the world in the race to be green?
According to Lord Anthony Giddens’ latest book, ‘The Politics of Climate Change‘ and a number of respected historians, Hitler may have given Germany a head-start. Not only did he pass the most stringent and comprehensive environmental protection law in the world at that time, but he also had a soft spot for vegetarianism, organic nibbles and animal welfare (up until the point when he poisoned his doting German Shepherd, Blondi, that is).
‘The Nazi “ecologists” […] had the aim of preventing damage to the environment in undeveloped areas, protecting forests and animals and reducing air pollution.’
Incredibly, it gets even juicier than one could have ever dreamed
[…] the Nazis, […] says Peter Staudenmaier, co-author of the book ‘Ecofascism’ were ‘conscious promoters and executors of a vile program explicitly dedicated to inhuman racist violence, massive political repression and worldwide military domination. Their “ecological” involvements, far from offsetting these fundamental commitments, deepened and radicalized them‘. […]