BBC: Richard Black’s Farewell
Let’s hope the reporter who replaces him is more balanced.
For those who do not know, Richard Black is / was the environmental and global warming reporter for the BBC .
I’m sorry for the short post; I’m sending it from my phone from a fast food restaurant along Interstate 5.
hat tip to WUWT reader Pat
The Teams has lost its BBC bag boy , some one more balanced not sure about that given its cultural rather individual thing at the BBC , but at least it would be hard to have some one less balanced.
Let’s hope the reporter who replaces him is more balance.
??
“Good riddance to bad rubbish”.
The BBC should be closed down and in Australia the ABC. It gets my goat that they spend my tax money on propaganda .
Well the link is broken but its broken from the side of the BBC page as well.
Says he is off to work on ocean conservation issues, sounds like a strange move for a supposedly neutral unbiased reporter.
Did he jump or was he pushed… he was caught out working as a campaigner in Brazil at the last climate scare working group after all , all I can say for sure is THANK GOD that man was/is a disgrace to journalism and should never have had a job in a publicly funded broadcaster
he will be sorely missed /sarc off
good riddance – but I pity the poor folk he will be joining…and I doubt his leaving will help the BBC regain any of its impartiality.
Big Green must be paying more bucks than the Beeb…
To quote Steven King, `The Stand`- `No great loss.
Ocean conservation? Maybe he’ll replace Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd who is on the run from the law in Costa Rica and skipped bail in Germany.
Mr Black on the outside would be in a perfect position to become a conduit for low quality propaganda from the ecomentalist industry, a key ex insider with golden contacts within the BBC and in effect a ‘deniable’ middleman passing as much pseudo science junk science as possible onto his replacement. As the BBC can no longer justify employing such a partisan and biased person it is a clever trick to have him on the outside doing more or less the same job only off the books as it were.
I thought this was a joke at first, given his well publicised bias, this is a step in the right directiom.
Now we just have to hope moonbat gets moved on 🙂
Unfortunately, it seems that the CBC here in Canada have been”interviewing” warmists rather a lot recently. It is a pity the media are so biased.
Perhaps he can get a job playing the role of the Micheal Mann in the up-coming Hollywood blockbuster “Dispatches”. 😉
Black, Mann, Hanson, and one other I can’t think of his name at the moment, they all look alike. Is there some kind of genic link?
For some reason the direct link to Richard Black’s farewell from the BBC is being rendered inoperative,
But you can still access it by routing through the BBC – Science & Environment page ;
Here – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science_and_environment/
Scroll down to the Richard Black heading.
Here’s the full text.
Farewell and thanks for reading
This is my last entry for this page – I’m leaving the BBC to work, initially, on ocean conservation issues.
While this page will no longer be updated, it will stay here for reference.
I hope you’ve enjoyed reading my blog down the years – I’ve enjoyed writing it, and have appreciated your comments.
To keep up to date with news and views about the environment, I hope you’ll keep reading the science and environment pages of the BBC News website, and my science correspondent colleagues Jonathan Amos and David Shukman.
I think it’s kind of humorous that Richard says this page will stay there for reference in perpetuity – but the BBC sends back a 404 – this page does not exist – code on the first day.
Does that mean he is going to the Russian Arctic in winter to fight the drilling expansion there? I’m sure it will be warm and inviting with all the open, warm water expanses. Or does it mean he got a good deal on beachfront property in the tropics after scaring the locals to sell before the rising seas engulf them?
Chris B says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Let’s hope the reporter who replaces him is more balance.
??
==========================
A more balanced comment might have put things right, if pointed at the mods.
But, that wasn’t the intension was it ?
Gotta talk up that investment portfolio or the pensions at the BBC won’t look so good. Look out for a Black clone.
Nothing to do with his rule-breaking advocacy work oh no:
“unquestionable evidence of a close relationship between Richard Black and advocacy group Stakeholder Forum. He has evidently been working closely with them and even ready to “pitch to the Beeb” on their behalf, thereby using our public money to help Stakeholder Forum with their propaganda aims for the RIO+20 conference.”
http://blackswhitewash.com/2012/06/21/richard-black-so-what-is-he-actually-doing-in-rio/
Nothing to see here, move along . . . .
ocean conservation issues . . hmm. . euphemism for a set of concrete socks?
I do hope that Dick becomes an ‘Ocean Elder’, just like Branson.
Just think how much easier we can sleep at night knowing that our fragile oceans are in such good hands.
The BBC will not be the same without him
dogald wrote: “it seems that the CBC here in Canada have been ‘interviewing’ warmists rather a lot recently.”
The media is controlled by The Team. They’re everywhere. Probably watching you right now.
eyesonu says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Black, Mann, Hanson, and one other I can’t think of his name at the moment, they all look alike. Is there some kind of genic link?
You mean Black, Mann, Hansen and Schmidt – Yes they all do look strangely similar.
Keith AB says:
August 31, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Gotta talk up that investment portfolio or the pensions at the BBC won’t look so good. Look out for a Black clone.
=========================================================
I hear Michael Mann is available………..
beesaman says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Big Green must be paying more bucks than the Beeb…
_________________________________
Given PPC has their pension funds all wrapped up in green companies, may be he saw the writing on the wall and bailed while he had the chance.
One thing is for sure, Ocean Acidification will be the next BIG CATASTROPHE or something else to do with oceans and that is why Black is making the move.
I am sure his replacement will be the same type of propaganda mouthpiece.
Does his calling to ocean conservation imply that we’re about to run out of ocean? Have we hit “peak ocean”? What does that mean for sea level? So many questions 🙂
EternalOptimist says:
August 31, 2012 at 1:22 pm
…
LMAOROFL – Thanks for the comic relief:-D
TerryMN
doubtful
2C8H18 + 25O2 ~> 16CO2 + 18H2O
peak Oxygen perhaps?
Sandy
Ocean conservation? Excellent! If the oceans were to suddenly disappear, it would greatly reduce the size of the planet!
Richard Black? We can’t begin to describe the good that he’s done.
And that’s the problem.
(irony off)
Castoria back in fashion?
Eyesonu I totally agree, they do all look alike!
As for Anthony’s wish for a more balanced reporter…not a chance!
I follow all climate blogs – on both sides of the divide. None of you do yourselves any favours by unnecessary and snide remarks on persons representing what they believe in. It takes the learning no-where.
“Let’s hope the reporter who replaces him is more balance.”
Anyone else remember playing “Charlie Brown, let me down”?
The BBC is Charlie Brown and isn’t getting off their asses to balance the game any time soon.
The opposite of balanced is unbalanced. They’re an unbalanced lot they are, the warmists.
“Let’s hope the reporter who replaces him is more balanced”
I would settle for anyone that had some balance.
You don’t honestly believe the BCC will find someone to do balanced environmental reporting, do you?
Maybe Ella Davies a new luminary at the BBC is going to take his place. Anyway she wrote an article today on the next eco scare, animal extinction. In this article it was exposed that invertebrates, meaning bugs and many sea creatures are at risk of extinction because of humans. In it we further learn that the risk of extinction is increasing partly because of the ongoing process, where the pH levels of the ocean rise in response to increases in atmospheric CO2.
I assume pH rise sounds scarier that pH decrease. The same ting happened a few years ago when we were told that global warming was going to be worse than we thought because of negative feedback.
“… in an odd way this is cheering news…”
H/T to Phil Jones… 🙂
Please forgive me for being cynical, but RB has always been “an earner” and there are lots of opportunities for a “front man” out there:-
“The Whale & Dolphin Marine Conservation ProjecTraining / Qualifications”
http://www.enkosiniecoexperience.com/Whale&DolphinConservation.htm?gclid=COPMj7jskrICFYYTfAod_S0AGg
Training will be given in various aspects of marine conservation.
We limit the maximum number of volunteers to 12 people. This way the experience is more intimate and personal.
Costs
Volunteer Contribution:
1 week: GB£595 / US$995
2 weeks: GB£795 / US$1395
3 weeks: GB£1095 / US$1895
4 weeks: GB£1395 / US$2395
and:-
http://www.biosphere-expeditions.org/1-week-projects/conservation-work-with-whales-dolphins-turtles-a.html
PRICE = Expedition contribution (land only per slot)
£1240 (ca. €1490 | US$1970 | AU$1890).
I wonder if RB maybe “following the money”?
Of course I could be totally wrong and I am sure RB will understand my curiosity even though I am not a journo.
Gail Combs says: August 31, 2012 at 1:34 pm
One thing is for sure, Ocean Acidification will be the next BIG CATASTROPHE
I’ve seen, heard, and answered that one lurking in the wings. But what about Chem Trails?
I’d really like to see a good WUWT article on that one.
“Peak Intellect”?
Pushed or jumped?
No doubt his pension is stil intact
Not to worry, someone else has taken up The Cause http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/climate-change-heretics-media-easy-ride
“A misinformed electorate, voting without knowledge, is not a true democracy. Society needs the expertise of academics in the most important issues: climate science above all”
“I would propose a system of certification for media articles in which there is a clear issue of social responsibility”
Written by an expert. A student of English Lit.
Good riddance
Given his impressive writing/reporting Dr David Whitehouse is the standout choice, but I don’t think he would have them.
Isabelle says:
August 31, 2012 at 2:27 pm
I follow all climate blogs – on both sides of the divide. None of you do yourselves any favours by unnecessary and snide remarks on persons representing what they believe in. It takes the learning no-where.
—————————————————
Richard Black’s religious beliefs are his own business. It is a pity they do not remain so instead of being constantly thrown at us as “facts”, especially whilst employed by a supposedly unbiased publically funded (with no choice) broadcaster. There is nothing to be learned from such people other than the extent of their arrogant self belief.
No amount of snideness can be too much when it comes to Richard Black and his BBC pals
BBC on issues concerning geopolitical aspirations in the context of a new world order, is just another MSM mouthpiece, albeit a very virulent one, for the conditioning of the world’s masses to accept their global overlord’s AGW pretext and strategy for establishing planetary government.
Re: Venkman says:August 31, 2012 at 12:35 pm
One can always use another chum on a boat. Black has always been into recycling, so this is a good career move. He didn’t get Harribin’s job, so he’s off to fertilise the oceans in the only way he knows.
Good.
When I made a complaint his reply was just insulting.
TerryMN says:
August 31, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Does his calling to ocean conservation imply that we’re about to run out of ocean? Have we hit “peak ocean”? What does that mean for sea level? So many questions 🙂
________________________________
HMMmmm
Peak ocean, that must mean Black must think we are headed into a major Ice Age and the sea water will again reside on land as glaciers miles thick. OOOHHHH the poor sea coral! /sarc
– – – – –
Isabelle,
The word ‘believe’ in your comment hits the essence of the situation. The belief in CAGW was the biasing element. That was the fundamental subjective error of those pretending scientific objectivity. Subjectivism is irrational.
John
Isabelle says:
August 31, 2012 at 2:27 pm
I follow all climate blogs – on both sides of the divide. None of you do yourselves any favours by unnecessary and snide remarks on persons representing what they believe in. It takes the learning no-where.
_______________________________
The man is supposed to be an IMPARTIAL Journalist! He is working for a government funded publication that is supposed to provide BOTH SIDES not propaganda. The difference between Black and Walter Duranty is nil.
RB will be easily replaced….BBC need only place this ad….
WANTED….Dogmatic Finger Wagger…Objectivity NOT Required….Apply Within….
[done & dusted]
Oh no…what will http://blackswhitewash.com/ do?
Tony B:
Care to explain what religious beliefs were throw at you as “facts”? Should all news organizations present “both sides” of everything they cover? So if the BBC started talking about evolution, they should also equally cover creationist nonsense? Perhaps I might agree with this, if they didn’t present the creationist argument as fact(because it isn’t).
Isabelle says:
August 31, 2012 at 2:27 pm
I follow all climate blogs – on both sides of the divide. None of you do yourselves any favours by unnecessary and snide remarks on persons representing what they believe in. It takes the learning no-where.
=============================
If a commenter here were to state what they feel with regards to Black, would you be doing yourself any favors by making a snide remark? Please read what you wrote.
TonyB (another one) above answers your concerns quite succinctly.
Is he going to help Bambam lower the oceans? What does he know about oceanology – but he is a gifted propagandist (that is his role after all). So, will he be writing script for Scripps?
No great loss. There’ll be another one popping up to take his place.
31 Aug: Guardian: CommentIsFree: Jay Griffiths: Don’t give climate change heretics an easy ride
Climate change heretics rarely have a science background, but editors are still happy to air their views
PHOTO CAPTION: A polar bear on pack ice in Svalbard archipelago, Norway.
No one would want a novelist to perform brain surgery with her biro. No one would want a man with a PhD in political science to then write textbooks claiming that those misadventures are best medical practice.
Society understands the architecture of academia and knows there are relevant qualifications in different fields, and the media accepts the idea of specialisations and accords greater respect to those with greater expertise. With one exception: climate science…
I would propose a system of certification for media articles in which there is a clear issue of social responsibility – a kitemark of quality assurance. It would be awarded by teams of academics, and be given to the article, not the journalist, recognising the facts, not the sometimes spurious credibility of being a “personality”. It would be awarded when the article is accurate, using reliable sources and peer reviewed studies. There already exists the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, which answers journalists’ questions to help them achieve accuracy. The formality of certification is necessary, though, for the reader to know whether to trust an article. Accuracy must not only be achieved, but be seen to have been achieved.
The certification should be voluntary. I’m not against entertainment: if someone wants to read nonsense-mongers, let them, but I resent the appearance of parity between two articles on an issue as serious as climate change when one article is actually gibberish masked in pseudoscience and the other is well informed and accurate…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/climate-change-heretics-media-easy-ride
about the author, whose article would not be “certifiable”, according to her own criteria:
jaygriffiths.com: Jay Griffiths was born in Manchester and studied English Literature at Oxford University.
The following writers have given endorsements to her work: David Abram, John Berger, Fritjof Capra, Marie Darrieussecq, Gretel Ehrlich, Niall Griffiths, Tom Hodgkinson, Joan London, Barry Lopez, Richard Mabey, Robert Macfarlane, Bill McKibben, Adrian Mitchell, George Monbiot, Philip Pullman, David Rothenberg, Vandana Shiva, and Gary Snyder.
http://www.jaygriffiths.com/
View from the Solent brings to light a nasty piece of carp @ August 31, 2012 at 3:23 pm
“A misinformed electorate, voting without knowledge, is not a true democracy. Society needs the expertise of academics in the most important issues: climate science above all”
“I would propose a system of certification for media articles in which there is a clear issue of social responsibility”
Great stuff. The ignorant serfs should be guided in their correct views and voting patterens so the great leader will bestow benificence upon them. The Platonic Guardians, apparently those who read The Guardian, know what is best for us and will present us serfs with the appropriate choice to select, elect and swallow.
How can supposedly smart people write such disgusting stuff? Musollinni would be pleased. So would Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. Not to mention The Man, Goebbels.
Richard Black is a cruel ego-maniacal person. He has a point of view loosely based on questionable facts and he abuses other people who disagree with his religious obsession with the theory of AGW.
It is entirely appropriate that he stop faking his job as an objective journalist and come out of his transparent closet and openly write propaganda for his obsession du jour.
Good riddance to yet another abuser of the scientific method.
Clown you were, clown you are, clown you will remain. Forgotten.
I wouldn’t expect anything dramatic but over the years I have seen the BBC ‘change its spots’ on many issues.
One must also factor in the personal unpopularity of the odious Mr Black, I would think that the whole Department must be elated at his departure and any successor will be very careful not to follow too closely in his footsteps.
The loss of his platform must undoubtedly be painful for him (egotism/narcissism is a key characteristic of the team members) and I relish his reduction to the ranks of the ‘active’.
Isabelle says:
August 31, 2012 at 2:27 pm
I follow all climate blogs – on both sides of the divide. None of you do yourselves any favours by unnecessary and snide remarks on persons representing what they believe in. It takes the learning no-where.
=============
It took it here.
The Beeb seems to be reorganizing if nothing else. Couple weeks ago their long-running ecoterrorist scream “One Planet” was dropped, but its tone seems to have been picked up by “Science Today”.
“I’m sorry for the short post; I’m sending it from my phone from a fast food restaurant along Interstate 5.”
Oh no Anthony, you are eating a Fast Food Joint!!! You’re going to Die if Global Warming doesn’t fry you first. LOL
Maybe Al offered him a job.
“This is my last entry for this page – I’m leaving the BBC to work, initially, on ocean conservation issues.”
Hang about Richard. Weren’t you and your lot always banging on about how the oceans were swelling and rising and going to engulf us all? So what’s with this sudden, about face, ocean conservation trip you’re on now boyoh? They’re not about to dry up on us are they?
Does anyone really hope that the BBC will go rational and decent and hire someone rational and decent to replace an irrational and indecent man?
O/T I liked Romney’s speech ‘ He promised to lower the sea levels etc’ I am not an American but wish you all well in your next Presidential election. Especially over the climate debacle. Personally I have never taken to Obama’s wife, looks a hard gal to me. The way he bowed to the Arab nobility and hugged our Queen in UK! Very non political eh? Bullshhh. He appeared at first to be somewhat new blood, very popular overseas before election, but yer gotta have more than that.
He was pushed out. Changes were made in January of this year after a BBC review which found a lack of impartiality with respect to several science subjects including climate change. One of the actions was the installation of a new science editor and although RB was supposedly considered for the job he was passed over. RB resented being passed over and has hated working under the new science editor who has a background in news reporting.
See this article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/16/bbc-david-shukman-science-editor
sunsettommy says:
August 31, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Does anyone really hope that the BBC will go rational and decent and hire someone rational and decent to replace an irrational and indecent man?
————————————————-
The same can be said here with the CBC.
Couldn’t agree more.
More balance here,too. Perhaps ask Monckton (birther) or Jo Nova (gold bug) to write a rebuttal to the round earth theory. At least post an article on creationist science once in a while.
“Let’s hope the reporter who replaces him is more balance.”
Let’s not.
Let’s hope the reporter who replaces him is more balanced.
“Richard Black”? Never heard of him.
Must not have been very important.
Isabelle says:
August 31, 2012 at 2:27 pm
I follow all climate blogs – on both sides of the divide. None of you do yourselves any favours by unnecessary and snide remarks on persons representing what they believe in. It takes the learning no-where.
===========================
Try reading the BBC guidance on impartiality. Whilst you are at it, also read how BBC reporters are supposed to cite statistics correctly and in context. You will then be in a position to critique Mr Black’s output objectively. Then you might realise why he is so loathed by those who don’t buy into the cAGW belief system
Trolls come and go when they are ignored.
Bleeding hearts at least will get an acknowledgement and explanation.
It must suck to be a troll.
eyesonu: Yes you are right they do look alike. I wonder why that is, sort the Maynard G. Krebs look, the beatnik type.
Sometimes, it is a case of “better the devil you know, than the one you don’t”
Richard Black was well known for being an arrogant individual churning out highly biased nonsense on the subject of climate change.
His leaving the BBC will be no loss, but it is likely his replacement will be someone who also has the same bias – lack of balance – towards the subject of climate change. The problem is that this someone could be a lot more credible and therefore influential.
In a story Richard Black wrote on the 6 August 2012 titled:
There he referenced Dr. Muller, James Hansen and Anthony Watts. Down the page he shows his bias again where he says:
Good riddance and good luck with your new work on “ocean conservation issues”.
Yes indeed. I always marvel at how weak the alarmist’s position is that they have to equate our skepticism to creationism, support for smoking, 911 or moon landing deniers etc. They always seem to swerve away from providing evidence for or discussing evidence against their position by projection onto us claiming we are just faith driven rather than proof driven.
Whenever I am asked why I think that the alarmists are conspiring to provide a false narrative my response is always to say that I simply think they accept something that is not proven and that I do not have the ability to discern the reasons why. I am not some swivel eyed conspiracist but there is certainly something stinkingly rotten in the alarmist camp because their science doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Why that should be is not for me to say.
I am aware of the lack of balance in reporting from the BBC, and mainstream media ( a new article in today’s online Guardian amply demonstrates this implying that non AGW believers are heretics). The rhetoric – deniers, believers, heretic, merely fans the flames and moves the attention from the science to the emotions, once again leading nowhere.
They are spreading out their info, Me thinks, if ya think you haven’t heard the last of this Black guy formally from the BBC, then you are mistakened. They don’t go away, they’ll talk their talk on another forum, and make room for others to take their place to talk their talk.
In France the AGW agenda is still being pushed at full force. During the daily weather forecast on the national TV a mention is always made during the summer. Poles melting, Gosh isn’t it hot. Strangely enough enough never during the winter.
BBC has placed a good share of its pension fund in green economy and energy quota etc.
The main object with the things they have invested in is to reduce capitalism, marked and economic growth etc. So if the investments produce a return that money will have little meaning? Or more likely all the money will be lost?
Maybee he lost his trust in the BBC pension fund?
Maybe the following explains some of the BBC’s bias over climate issues over the years. Yes, it’s follow the money…………………it always is. Below are BBC investments locked in step with climate investments.
and
And Richard Black had the gall to try to link Sceptics with Creationists. Heh, heh. 😉
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/156703/-8bn-BBC-eco-bias-
[my bold]
You are correct in an odd sort of way. Now look at the BBC pension invested in climate and the religious members of that scheme. Finally, science is not about belief it’s about evidence.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/31/richard-black-resigns-from-the-bbc/#comment-1069029
Or what he is saying is that “the team and its gatekeepers” has lost its control over the production of papers in journals.
And he finds that less fun or meaningful?
If anyone thinks that his replacement will be anything other than a clone, I fear you will be sadly disappointed. The BBC advertises almost exclusively in the Grauniad (sic) so, it’ll be more of the same.
A horrible thought has just occurred. Maybe the Moonbat will apply.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/31/richard-black-resigns-from-the-bbc/#comment-1068784
Gail, that’s a myth. check it out yourself!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml
Top 10 include two tobacco & two “Big Oil” companies.
As a regular at Black’s blog over the last 5 years correcting his and his readers misconceptions and misrepresentations, I will miss him. With the exception of his views on climate change, I agreed with many things he said on environmental issues. Just because I don’t accept the CO2 meme doesn’t mean I don’t believe in looking after nature and the planet.
Over the years, I’ve complained a lot about Black’s coverage of cAGW and on occasions had articles corrected (although not acknowledged). The last one was Black’s (anonymous) report on the Muller paper, where I managed to get the Beeb to add the final paragraph referring to WUWT’s work.
His extracurricular work was the big concern. His ties to environmental groups and teaching activists how to lobby journalists was beyond the pale.
I was probably the most marked down contributor to Black’s blog – my comments were marked down, often to -10 or more, within minutes of my posting, which I always thought was a good sign. The warmists couldn’t respond with anything sensible, so they voted on my comments – kind of like no data on cAGW, so the scientists vote.
Need to find another Beeb blog to carry on my “work” (this is a reference to Albatross from SkS who told me he followed my comments on Black’s blog and here, and it was his work).
So now he’s off to work on ocean issues.
Goodbye Richard and thanks for all the fish.
I can’t see it making a blind bit of difference. The policies of the BBC will remain unchanged as their pension plan relies on it.
Just how much of a difference to HM Gov policy was there when Chris BuffHuhne finally stepped down and was replaced by another Lib Dem in Ed Davey? None. Different person, same crap policy influenced by Westminster lobbyists.
intention
Heh.
Jeremy says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:07 pm
“One of the actions was the installation of a new science editor and although RB was supposedly considered for the job he was passed over. RB resented being passed over and has hated working under the new science editor who has a background in news reporting.”
Unfortunately David Shukman will provide no more balance, as he is a keen advocate of biased rporting. He avidly followed Penn Hadow’s exploits and is as keen on using the BBC’s “go to man” on the Arctic, Peter Wadhams, as is Susan Watts at BBC 2.
In one of his reports he said: “Many more icebergs falling into the sea will cause two things to happen – the sea-level will rise and the injection of freshwater could disrupt the ocean currents, including the Gulf Stream.” He did a great report from Tuvalu a few years back at the time of a King tide when there is general flooding, to show how the island was being inundated by rising seas.
He is very familiar with the Team and is an e-mail correspondent with them:
Dear Phil,
I’m sure you’re very busy but I’d love a quick chat if you get the chance. I’ll be over in Paris from Wednesday to get ready for our coverage of the IPCC.
Many thanks
David
David Shukman
Environment & Science Correspondent
BBC News
From: P.Jones@
Sent: 26 January 2007 16:03
To: David Shukman
Subject: Re: Paris next week
David,
I’m in Paris now and will be till Feb 2.
I’ve not got a mobile here, so look me up when you’re around at the meeting. The meeting will be quite hectic – we start with 2 closed days tomorrow and Sunday. I’ve just signed up for a week of email at the hotel, so email might be the best way to contact me till you
arrive.
We’re not supposed to talk until the end of the meeting.
There are lots of rumours going around about what some countries want. The best of these, if correct, is that the US wants the conclusions beefed up which is a complete change of their stance.
Cheers
Phil
date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:43:00 -0000
from: “David Shukman”
subject: RE: Paris next week
to:
Phil,
We may want to grab you for a very quick interview after the press conference.
By the sounds of it, it’s all very slow going. US? Saudis?
David
—–Original Message—–
From: P.Jones@
Sent: 29 January 2007 21:11
To: David Shukman
Subject: RE: Paris next week
David,
I’m at the meeting and staying at the Hilton nr the Eiffel Tower. No idea when we will finish going thru the SPM. At the present rate it could be late.
Leave a message at the hotel. I’ll be at the press conference on Friday and then till I have to leave about 3pm to come home.
Cheers
Phil
Hi
We’ll be around in Paris on Thursday. Of all the rumours, I haven’t heard your US one. I’d have thought the opposite. The last draft I’ve seen was from October 27 so I imagine things have moved on a lot.
All the best
David
Shukman’s greatest hour as a reporter was this:
BBC Seduced by Tale of ‘al Qaeda Diamond Trade,’ Now Being Sued
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/dec/10/mondaymediasection.afghanistan
Sorry, left in Phil Jones e-mail address, I’m sure everyone knows it anyway.
[redacted~ac]
This is the Shukman report from 2004, where he spoke of iceberg calving raising sea levels.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.stm
“Greenland ice-melt ‘speeding up'”
“First you hear a savage cracking sound, next the rolling crash of thunder. Then as the icebergs rip away from the margin of the ice-sheet they plunge into the grey waters of the Atlantic with a roar that echoes around the mountains. In some places, the ice is melting one metre a month
Nothing prepares you for the sheer scale and drama of events in this forbidding terrain and all the signs are that the changes at work here are gathering pace. “
Thanks Adam.
Am I reading the last link right????? Does the BBC have investments in tobacco and oil companies????
Investment Holding £m
British American Tobacco 63.65
BP 55.71
Royal Dutch Shell 52.83
Imperial Tobacco 48.09
Oao Gazprom 16.77
Occidental 11.53
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml
Co-incidentally (or perhaps not) the Biased BBC blog had a piece on his “reporting” methods on 30th August –
http://biased-bbc.com/2012/08/30/stringing-us-along/
Me says: They are spreading out their info, Me thinks, if ya think you haven’t heard the last of this Black guy formally from the BBC, then you are mistakened. They don’t go away, they’ll talk their talk on another forum,
From Black’s perspective he may think this is a good move, as he will no longer have to even pretend to be pretending to be neutral – which will allow him endulge in is vitreol knowing his friends at the BBC will be more than happy to publicise it … by “balancing” his views by someone on the “other side” of the debate who thinks it will be just a bit worse or a bit better than Black.
… that’s what “balance” means at the BBC.
@Tony B
It comes up again and again! ‘Pseudo-science’ is not allowed, either from sceptics or creationists. Sceptics think AGW is pseudo-science and creationists think evolution is pseudo-science, but creationists and sceptics have a lot in common, they both know, understand and allow discussions of both sides of the debate, and can defend their view scientifically without recourse to religion. What evolutionists and AGWers have in common is that they don’t, and they don’t want anything to slip into the public domain to indicate that they are not the gatekeepers of truth. Therefore it is not safe for them (AWG and EVOL) to have a real debate, it never helps their side. It only ever promotes doubt at best. Their high ground is maintained by every trick in the book except for real science and truth. The sceptics know this very well, but they don’t want to accept that what holds true for their position also holds true for the creationist position. Most sceptics are very schizophrenic and inconsistent in this, and would like their science to be recognised as truth and really wish for a return to a true scientific method, a critical evaluation of evidence etc., but they want to deny it to others especially creationists and IDers. The evidence against evolution is staggering, but it is systematically prevented from being heard. Sceptics want to open a door that they also want to keep closed. You have to decide, do you want a return to real verifiable science or what? or do you want to keep the closed peer review process that excludes everything that doesn’t fit the current paradigm, and all the AGW stuff that goes with it. You can’t have both.
Good riddance to very, very bad biased journalism.
Anyone interested in knowing what has happened to the BBC, Bishop Hill wrote an essay on this which is essential reading:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/conspiracy-in-green/
£0.75 approx $1 for PDF and Kindle is well spent IMHO.
I complained to Black some time ago about a report of his about Ocean Acidification with rising atmospheric CO2 levels. It was wrong and ignored several important points which I mentioned. He got his mate, the senior course writer, Oceanography at the Open University reply to me calling me all sorts of idiot. I replied to him sating that having just completed the OU Oceanography course I thought I was correct but if the science had changed since the course was written, or the books were wrong, then what was the new data. I got no reply. So bully Black has friends of similar ilk.
Glad he is going. Could have been sooner but—-?
Oceans????
How are you celebrating Shark Week this year?
Black’s position at the Beeb became even more untenable after his gleeful defence of Gleick and BlacksWhitewash highlighting of his outside activities at Rio, Shareholders Forum etc.
The Beeb lost all pretense of impartiality when they closed the Blog of Bloom over 2 years ago http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/
I’ll miss him – it was so easy to show how little he knew about climate sensitivity – something he never understood
Well I guess the warmists are fundamentally unbalanced and unstable. They believe that the Earth’s climatic system is unbalanced, unstable and the Earth is heading towards a fiery doom.
I get the impression that there is a lot of “repositioning” going on. The bluster brigade have failed in the frontal assault on climate realism and are being quietly sidelined. Mann on sabbatical, seemingly forever. Black off to the Oceans. Uk Chief “scientist” resigned and changed. I am sure there are more examples but I don’t have time to look it all up. Maybe coincidence or we are about to face a more subtle assault from the sappers now the cavalry have failed. Just a feeling. Too much money involved for the troughers to walk away, but too many visible mistakes by the bluster brigade allowing the public to glimpse snippets of reality through the fog.
My apologies for excessive metaphors. George Orwell will turn in his grave.
Ivor Ward
The BBC still has Harrabin. The Daily Telegraph still gives prominence to Louise Gray and Geoffrey Lean.
Post lunch brainstorm. There’s Shukman too.
Jeremy says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:07 pm
He was pushed out. Changes were made in January of this year after a BBC review which found a lack of impartiality with respect to several science subjects including climate change.
See this article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/16/bbc-david-shukman-science-editor
Actually, the review found too much impartiality… you couldn’t make it up. See the article at the link you gave:
” an independent review of the BBC’s science output which concluded that its drive for impartiality lends too much credence to maverick views on the MMR vaccine, climate change and genetically modified crops.”
jonathan frodsham writes: “Good riddance to bad rubbish”.
The BBC should be closed down and in Australia the ABC. It gets my goat that they spend my tax money on propaganda .
And I would add our own National Propaganda Radio (NPR) to the list. Why can’t the “free” world’s governments keep their mitts off of “news”/disinformation?
eyesonu says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Black, Mann, Hanson, and one other I can’t think of his name at the moment, they all look alike. Is there some kind of genic link?
__________________________
They have common ancestry with Homer Simpson?
Bye folks and thanks for all the fish!
DaveE.
Bring back David Bellemy ……. oh forgot they sacked him for refusing to promote C02 GW
They’ll most likely now take a more cunning subtle ‘tack’ to promoting the perseption.
After all C02 is £34 billion a year to the UK tax coffers & apparently only spend £4 bill on green issues & I would bet half of that goes to keep various climate change committees in place.
So they’ll not want to loose that.
This is the BBC we are talking about. There is as much chance of getting a balanced replacement as there is of Southend United winning the FA Cup!
TWE says:
August 31, 2012 at 1:33 pm
eyesonu says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Black, Mann, Hanson, and one other I can’t think of his name at the moment, they all look alike. Is there some kind of genic link?
You mean Black, Mann, Hansen and Schmidt – Yes they all do look strangely similar.
————————————————————————————–
It’s because they all smile at you the same way, while sneering at you on the inside (because they believe they’re so clever and know so much more than you do).
sunsettommy says:
August 31, 2012 at 7:24 pm
“Does anyone really hope that the BBC will go rational and decent and hire someone rational and decent to replace an irrational and indecent man?”
No, I don’t. No way.
kwik says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:04 am
sunsettommy says:
August 31, 2012 at 7:24 pm
“Does anyone really hope that the BBC will go rational and decent and hire someone rational and decent to replace an irrational and indecent man?”
No, I don’t. No way.
—————————————————————————————
The BBC is controlled by strings, from above. There is an agenda. To me it’s blindingly obvious.
OK, maybe I’ve just been visiting too many alternative news sites over the years – drunk on conspiracy theories, so to speak. Maybe I should try and watch/read more MSM, maybe I’d get it then
Let’s hope the reporter who replaces him is more balanced.
Triumph of hope over experience Anthony ?
‘Guam says:
August 31, 2012 at 12:48 pm
I thought this was a joke at first, given his well publicised bias, this is a step in the right directiom.
Now we just have to hope moonbat gets moved on :)’
You mustn’t call him Moonbat. I did that in the blog to his latest rubbish about arctic ice and my comment was cut.
You must call him His Royal Highness King George Monbiot (about whose madness no film has yet been made, because of course no madness exists…..)
SgtCupcake says:
August 31, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Tony B:
Care to explain what religious beliefs were throw at you as “facts”? Should all news organizations present “both sides” of everything they cover? So if the BBC started talking about evolution, they should also equally cover creationist nonsense? Perhaps I might agree with this, if they didn’t present the creationist argument as fact(because it isn’t).
*********************************************************
What on earth are you talking about? What has Creationism got to do with this?
The religious beliefs I am talking about are those of the cAGW Cult, who refuse to accept that their beliefs have no foundation in science, yet continue to chant them incessantly in the hope that everyone with a brain will eventually give up and chant along with them.
Clearly you are convinced by the BBC’s specious argument against discussing anything which disagrees with the cAGW religion because “97% of climate scientists agree…blah blah”.
News organisations should be un-biased.
The BBC is not, as it is staffed by so many “believers” like Black.
And don’t even begin to think about calling me, or anyone else who does not accept the cAGW message, a “Creationist”
Blackout at the Beeb.
Kitefreak says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:29 am
“OK, maybe I’ve just been visiting too many alternative news sites over the years – drunk on conspiracy theories, so to speak. Maybe I should try and watch/read more MSM, maybe I’d get it then”
The BBC journalists got schooled by futerra to report CO2AGW as proven fact, not as a hypothesis. That’s not a conspiracy; it’s a documented published fact.
http://www.futerra.co.uk/
This link used to point to a rather interesting article… but it’s been wiped…
http://www.futerra.co.uk/blog/715
Hint, the wayback machine has a copy…
Scottish Sceptic says:
August 31, 2012 at 3:46 pm
“Good.
When I made a complaint his reply was just insulting.”
Me too. And he took over a month to treat me like excrement. He wasn’t even witty in his rebuffing email.
Hopefully, my license fee will be spent on a more eloquent propagandist from now on.
I often got his articles amended by the BBC and his climate reporting was very very poor, almost always inaccurate… but on other topics he wrote some good stuff…. he has talents so I am not sure why he has wasted the past few years making a fool out of himself on the BBC….
I would love to think my exposing the unprofessional links between Richard Black and Stakeholder Forum had something to do with this wonderful news. But I suspect he just got offered more cash to write stuff.
@blackswhitewash
it helped, but i think the lure of being able to do something worthwhile tipped Black
Who I am kidding, he’s rebranded himself as @EnviroBlack
Money, money, money
Must be funny
In Enviros world
Money money, money
Always sunny
In Enviros world
Ah ha aaaaaaa a
All the things I could do
If I had Enviros money
It’s Enviros world
/sarc
(in case anybody thinks I serious – I actually always had good responses from Black and enjoyed his other work on enviromental issues.)
Just realised the song in my last post really could apply to all the watermelons
he did not like me and got me blocked from following him on Twitter… I reported this to the BBC governors and they made him unblock me. I was never abusive, just humourous. I genuinely think for him it was a “can’t see the wood from the trees situation”… He was just pulled along by the rip current. What was pathetic was the creepy behaviour of those who trolled his bbc clogs targetting people like me who pointed out errors etc etc, ( The same sheople who live at Mann’s FaceBook page and skew the review statistisc for Mann’s published drivel ). They are sad beyond description. “Get-a-life” does not even get close.
‘Let’s hope the reporter who replaces him is more balanced.’ —- don’t hold your breath
It’s not this particular person, it’s the lack of scientifically educated personnel in the upper echelons of the BBC that is the problem.
Captain Black and The Mysterons will continue elsewhere.
A lot of people are leaving the BBC this includes news readers and weather people. They are probely getting sick and tried of “non news” and “PC attitudes”. I no longer watch the BBC news prog in the morning, I now watch RT and France 24 for actual footage of what the hell is going on.
Well Greg, I can’t speak for C24 but just because RT has an opposite take on the news from the BBC doesn’t make ’em right. I know from personal experience that the propaganda spin the Russians use isn’t your friend. They have a position and an agenda and that is not favorable to the west as they see it.
Black has tweeted he attended Felix Dodds of the Stakeholders Forum leaving party.
Dodds is also a member of the Council of Advisors for the Collaborative Institute for Oceans, Climate and Security
My money is still on Black joining the Stakeholders Forum
Would it have anything to do with the fact the BBC sunk a lot of their superannuation fund into carbon credits? Anyone know how this works? Now the EU are not cutting their carbon emissions to 30% seems the faith in the alarmist propaganda ain’t so hot anymore. Excuse the pun.