Climategate 2.0 email 4894.txt shows just what Alex Kirby of BBC thinks of climate skeptics as he conveys it to Dr. Phil Jones. Clearly, there an incestuous relationship between climate science and the BBC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
date: Wed Dec 8 08:25:30 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.xx.xx>
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby” <alex.kirby@bbc.xxx.xx>
At 17:27 07/12/2004, you wrote:
Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can
well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we
are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any
coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and
being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an
expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it
clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
—–Original Message—–
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
h/t to WUWT reader “varco”. If I lived in the UK, I’d stop paying my BBC TV and radio license.
Here’s the Wikipedia bio on Kirby:
Alex Kirby is a British journalist, specializing in environmental issues. He worked in various capacities at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for nearly 20 years. From 1987 to 1996, he was the environmental correspondent for BBC News, in radio and television. He left the BBC in 1998 to work as a freelance journalist. He also provides media skills training to companies, universities and NGOs. He is also currently the environmental correspondent for BBC News Online, and hosted BBC Radio 4‘s environment series, Costing the Earth. He has no formal scientific training.
He writes a regular column for BBC Wildlife magazine.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
DirkH says:
November 24, 2011 at 1:19 pm
“I read the BBC news to see what the warmists are up to.”
Me too. Richard Black is almost a one-stop propaganda review, with his regurgitation of the latest spin. Same for the BBC televised news. Not nearly as blatant (and thus entertaining) as it was pre-Climategate, but still constant and more subtle. I do miss the daily doomsday reports from David Shukman. He was hilarious. Even the way he said “glaciers” (almost every day) made me laugh.
He was like the Monty Python version of an AGW reporter – but he obviously didn’t realize that.
Geo says:
November 24, 2011 at 12:27 pm
More BBC bias.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063737/BBCs-Mr-Climate-Change-accepted-15-000-grants-university-rocked-global-warning-scandal.html
As always the comments are as interesting as the article.
My wife watches the BBC and listens to its radio broadcasts. Despite my efforts at avoidance I therefore find myself occasionally exposed to it.
Its policies on CAGW are the least of it.
I hope you don’t think me unkind in saying so, but if the BBC were to be wiped off the face of the Earth and all those in any way connected with it were to die most horribly in the ensuing holocaust, I might stretch to feeling mildly satisfied with the outcome.
Indeed, I doubt that I’d be much happier if I had hand in it myself. Frankly, I’m at a loss to think of any form of retribution that would quench my hate for this traitorous organism and those who run it.
The BBC is a cancer on Britons. The sooner it is excised the better.
The BBC has five billion in retirement funds invested in carbon trading. Five BILLION. There is no way on Earth it’s going to report anything that might endanger its investment. If global warming panic fades away, so does the value of its stocks. Bye bye, BBC retirement accounts….
I suspect many of the leading MSM outlets pushing the global warming meme in the United States are similarly invested. NBC and MSNBC are obviously up to necks in it, but someone should check out the NYT, ABC, and PBS.
Now that we know the World Bank is involved in promoting the scare stories, standing to make a fortune on carbon schemes, as are countless “non-profit” organizations like the WWF, perhaps skeptics should be focusing on the money side of the equation. Trillions of potential dollars are riding on this hysteria, but there is nothing to be had if no crisis exists. Moreover, those trillions of potential dollars do not represent profits from producing selling an actual product, but from selling carbon credits the sellers have no right to in the first place.
Skeptics are accused of taking money from Big Oil, but Big Oil is also heavily invested in carbon schemes, and stands to make far more money from carbon trading than from producing fuels. Take away the profit motive, and most of those screaming about climate change would instantly shut up.
It’s actually worse than that – they are forced to watch BBC 24/7 for a week – cruel and inhuman punishment if I ever saw it. 😉
Jason,
“I think the death penalty thing may have been a joke, possibly lost in trans-atlantic-lation….”
Hoorah, someone got the joke. Maybe I should have put a smiley at the end 🙂
As for the BBC, I’ve stopped watching their news (as well as Sky news). If you want a different perspective try Russia Today, which is in English language. I just finished watching the Keiser report where he highlighted a new government initiative in the UK to try and boost house prices. He slams David Cameron for gifting taxpayers money to the construction industry – whom he describes as corrupt and crooked – with so called subsidies to develop what would otherwise be uneconomic, whilst using still more taxpayer money to underwrites the mortgage loans. Ie, get the banks to lend, but bail them out (again) if the loans go bad.
An unbelievably condescending attitude from BBC, but not unexpected as anyone will attest, judging by their uncritical espousing of all things pro-AGW.
BBC have to fulfil their charter with output which is fair and balanced. However, in order to be fair you have at least got to listen to possibly controversial views before making an editorial decision on whether to broadcast. In the case of AGW no such fairness is possible if you automatically, actively, and insultingly, shut out any input which might question the AGW orthodox view.
This was not fairness, but comes perilously close to censorship.
I’ve known it for years about the BBC. I call them the British Bullshit Cult.
How tragic that the once great BBC has now become the pressure group along with WWF, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace et al.in their totally biased support of the AGW cause, even though those scientists and organisations who support ‘The Cause’ have been exposed so many times for their crooked activity through falsifying the results of their research and their complete exposure through the email revelations. And how on earth does Roger Harrabin expect us to believe him when he says he gives fair and balanced reporting on the whole AGW debate, when he is given £15,000 by the University of East Anglia for his ‘work’ on the subject. He is either naeive or believes his listeners are naieve if he thinks that the University would give him such money if he wasn’t going to fully support their cause by reporting favourably on their lies and crooked research, which of caurse he always does. He is not likely to bite the hand that feeds him is he? Was the money paid to him personally and paid into his private bank account.I wonder? And is this the only ‘Fee’ he or any other science reporter or producer in the BBC, has ever received from UEA or any other AGW organisation? I doubt it. Does anyone have the means of finding out? Is this a FOI exercise? Perhaps some sceptic within the BBC might care to do a bit of quiet investigation from the inside and send their findings to Mr. Watts, anonomously of course! Roger Harrabin should be sacked for accepting the money which to most rational minds must be seen as nothing more than a bribe.
Ho ho the new BBC catch phrase.
About time you Poms took a leaf from my fellow Antipodeans’ Convict ideas and stopped paying licence fees. We did it in the 1960’s and our Australian Broadcasting Commision survives quite well on 11cents a day per tax payer and from a very much smaller taxed population than the UK. Mind you we still have the same left wing biased numpties as the BBC does, but mostly the entire country just ignores them.
A couple of blogs here have picked up the climategate 2.0 story but apart from that nothing else has hit the news, yet..
Vince Causey says:
November 24, 2011 at 2:17 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I try to avoid the BBC as much as possible since their bias infuriates me. Andrew Neal and Jwewmy Paxman can at times be good, but generally the quality of reporting is poor and investigative journalism sparse.
I too find myself often watching Russia Today. It is interesting to see a different perspective on events that should be reported and/or on the reporting of those events. Some of the current affairs programs are interesting and I would in particular recommend watching cross talk.
“If you don’t live in Britain, it is very hard to contextualise just how much sway the beeb has over most British folk’s consciousness. …” [Athelstan, November 24, 2011 at 1:01 pm]
Top comment, Athelstan. Unfortunately I hadn’t read it before I posted mine otherwise I would have acknowledged it as such. (BTW, I screwed up my sign in and posted under ‘johnwdarcher’).
“And if the BBC exhibited a bias towards one’s prejudices, would you notice? Or would you congratulate them on their fair and unbiased approach to the news?
I am quite happy to watch the BBC News and allow for bias, I haven’t discovered a lack of bias in any other news sources – so better the devil …” [Fred Streeter, November 24, 2011 at 1:01 pm]
Bully for you, Fred. Laudably open-minded of you.
Just one small matter – when I can I expect your cheque by way of reimbursement for your share of the money Al Beeb is extorting from me?
In case you are unaware, in Britain if one owns a televsion set and receives any broadcast television programmes from whatever source, one is required to pay Al Beeb their so-called Licence Fee, currently running at about £145 per annum, even if one never exposes oneself to their propaganda. Are you “quite happy” about that too?
The “ho ho” is out of context: it is in reference to the some of the friendly street goers they expect to pay for, er… dialogue with at the COP
The BBC is biased on everything. Meanwhile…
“Since I had a bit of a fling with the postman I haven’t been receiving my mail so I didn’t get my TV Licence reminder.”
“No-one watches TV apart from the parakeet. It calms him down and stops him ripping out his feathers.”
“I went to the PayPoint to pay for my licence, but I had to leave before I could pay as my kids were stealing sweets and I had to get them out fast.”
“My Payment Card fell in the toaster so I had to iron it and now the PayPoint machine won’t accept it.”
“I can’t afford a TV Licence now as the repayments on my brand new car are cleaning me out!”
“I never got the reminders because my two year-old hides all my post in her toy box”.
“I would have to sell my TV to pay for a licence so I can’t do that.”
“I don’t need a TV Licence, I already pay for my electricity bill.”
“I’m getting married and am too busy picking flowers, colours and things to buy a TV Licence.”
“I cannot go out to buy a licence because I am allergic to the sun.”
I have now complained to BBC, OFCOM (broadcasting regulator in UK), and my MP as follows:
“was pretty disappointed to see that your environmental correspondent Alex Kirby was clearly in league with the global warming activists and boasting that he stopped sceptical points of view being aired while at the BBC.
Why would this approach be sanctioned by and apparently the policy of the BBC?
Quote from email from Alex Kirby (from his BBC email address) to Phil Jones at CRU:
“Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can
well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we
are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any
coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and
being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an
expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it
clear that we think they are talking through their hats.”
Would appreciate some honest answers rather than any politically biased cover-up.
I can report that things are just the same with colonial cousin the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. According to Gerard Henderson from the Sydney Institute who runs his own media watch dog:
“…the taxpayer funded public broadcaster still does not have one conservative presenter or executive producer for any of its key programs on television or radio. Not one. And the left-of-centre Jonathan Green edits the on-line edition of The Drum. In other words, the taxpayer funded broadcaster remains a conservative-free zone.”
And I can imagine that they are sitting back at the moment with smirks on their faces as The Gillard Government’s Green inspired media inquiry tries to smear the excellent News Limited outlets with the same reputation as the phone hackers of the London tabloids.
I am afraid that The News of the World has unwittingly provided Gillard with a lever to extinguish any criticism of the present government’s policies in “tackling climate change” and introduce taxes “in the national interest” because “it is the right thing to do”. Any any-one that criticises these moves such as Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt is portayed as “an extremist” acting against “the national interest”. Free speech is definitely under threat in this emerging Nanny State of Australia.
And the backbone of the Nanny State, the ABC is beavering away almost every day with some catastrophe that we will face unless we introduce Gillard’s reforms such as “tackling climate change” with taxes. Unfortunately we have no option here as to whether or not to buy a licence to fund the broadcaster. It is extravagantly funded from general revenue so we have to grin and bear it – for the time being – hi ho.
Kirby should be Boycotted as a professional journalist, because he is not. He is a propagandist for private interests.
All the more galling in view of the recent “investigation” by some allegedly independent study group. The “investigation” found that BBC was giving ENTIRELY TOO MUCH TIME to skeptics. Advised BBC to stop trying for “balance” on an issue which has no conceivable room for discussion.
Since BBC has never given one picosecond of time to skeptics, even to ridicule them, the advice was physically and logically impossible. You can’t give LESS THAN ZERO time to one side or MORE THAN ALL time to the other side.
Old England says (November 24, 2011 at 4:59 pm):
“I have now complained to BBC, OFCOM (broadcasting regulator in UK), and my MP….”
A couple of years ago I complained to Advertising Standards about the UK Government’s TV Climate Change Ad showing a puppy drowning as the waters rose. After 6 months there was a meaningless adjudication.
So it’s ok for the UK Government to tell the people “believe in climate change or your dog gets it”!
Kirby has just been featured in a complaint (yours?) here: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
The penalty for no tv licence is a fine. Maximum £1000.00.
No criminal record, because it is not a recordable offence anymore (no prison option in sentencing)
The licence is needed to receive any broadcast television: any.
You can however watch bbc programs on bbc iplayer as long as it is not being watched “live” (as broadcast)
Most bbc programs are rigidly middle-of-the-road and not biased…..that tends to not happen in climate science and some current affairs…..I suspect a considerable degree of infiltration by the wwf of the bbc is the fault, but since they have infiltrated most governments in the west AND the un…..and probably most univs as well.
I was wandering through several economics sites recently, and was most surprised by how many ex-goldman sachs employees are now ensconced within organisations such as wwf, the un and many government departments, as well as some becoming employees after leaving government.
Strange.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/complete-and-annotated-guide-european-bank-run
Have a look at the “family tree”, then look at a few green organisations.
Sorry, should read “infiltration of the bbc by the wwf”
It’s a bit late…
Kirby’s piece on Youtube giving advice to climate journalists quotes an excellent line: “Why is this lying bastard telling me this particular lie at this particular time.”
It is instructive to note that he tells his audience to apply this fine acid test only to skeptics.
I’ve mentioned this before but the discussion brings it back to mind. I gave up on the BBC when I heard an announcer describe Molly Ivins as a “presidential historian.”
I do not pay TV licence legally. This is how I do it.
-I do not own a TV that can receive live BBC programming.
-I own a large LCD screen without TV reception.
-I connect it to my XBox 360 which is exempt from license fee and watch Sky TV Go through broadband which does not have BBC programming, only Sky channels.
-I can also watch Sky TV Go through my computer, which is exempt from license fee unless it has a TV receiver which it does not.
-Even more channels are coming to the XBox 360 with the December 6th software update.
-The TV Licensing arm of the BBC can kiss my glutes as they do not have powers to enter your premises without your permission.