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
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 @ur momisugly 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.