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
“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@ur momisugly
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@ur momisugly
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.