No word on whether Supermandia will appear in costume
I was surprised to learn of this new program from the NNB scheduled for Wed 31 Oct 2012 21:00 on BBC Radio 4.
Nice touch on the gloved hand there folks. Here’s the overview from the BBC website:
Climategate was the term quickly applied in 2009 to the mysterious appearance on the internet of large numbers of emails and documents belonging to some of the world’s leading climate scientists.
This happened just a month before the Copenhagen climate change conference, which failed to meet the expectations of many for agreement on international action. The timing may not be coincidental.
For some climate change sceptics, the emails were a disturbing revelation of the real thoughts and manoeuvrings of scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Centre and their international colleagues. The scientists argue that while some of the phrasing may have been unfortunate, there is nothing in the documents to undermine the validity of mainstream climate science.
Climategate certainly inflamed the debate over climate change, in the UK, the US and elsewhere.
In 2012 the Norfolk Police announced they were abandoning their investigation into who hacked into the university’s computer and then distributed what they found.
But what have been the longer-term consequences of this incident, for public opinion, media reporting and international policy-making on climate change? Chris Vallance investigates, asking if this was it a political crime, and, if so, how effective has it been?
Producers: Martin Rosenbaum & Catherine Donegan.
I’m told that Roger Tattersall (aka Tallbloke) was interviewed for this. I was not, which is probably their loss since the issue started with WUWT and I have some unique insight. OTOH it is probably just as well, as I have about as much respect for the BBC as I do PBS, being cast from the same government media mold.
h/t to WUWT reader Bill Eykyn
I just think it is excellent publicity for Bishop Hill’s new book on the incident.
Tuesday would be a good opportunity for unknown folks to release that password then.
The presenter of this programme, Chris Vallance, rang me up a couple of weeks ago for an ‘off the record chat’ about the police investigation. I got the impression they want to talk about us rather than to us on this one, but anyway, we’ll see.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/seminars-and-interview-a-busy-week-behind-the-scenes/
Odds are that the report will conclude that the only wrong-doers were those who trafficed in stolen documents. Hence the gloved hand above.
Telling the story of the crimes detailed WITHIN the documents cannot be told in an hour.
” .. being cast from the same government media mold.”
The BBC probably considers itself to be well above mere government. Last year the BBC committed itself to even more bias against criticism of AGW. See my blog of 21-Jul-2011, “BBC Science Report Slips Under the Radar”, http://millenniumirritant.webplus.net/page15.html
.
A “political crime”?!
Well at least you can be sure it will be as biased as possible. Their reputation as avid AGW enthusiasts is well known. For those who are unfamiliar with BBC’s fall from neutrality’s grace during the last decade here is a guy who keeps track: http://biased-bbc.com/
“Revisited”? I don’t recall them visiting the first time.
Having spent last Christmas celebrating what they knew a serial rapist and probably a paedophile, the BBC has the moral authority of a collection of hypocrites. I’d disband it at once, uniquely corrupted by its own unique power.
I second your opinion on the BBC Anthony.
“Chris Vallance investigates, asking if this was it a political crime, and, if so, how effective has it been?”
Note the emphasis – the BBC assumes it was a crime; the only question is what kind of crime.
As you say Anthony, government media. And I guarantee Tallbloke’s input will be hacked about in the editing and minimised.
Wow the BBC covering climategate, they must be trying to shore up the defenses of that rickety house called AGW.
I think they will be shooting themselves in the foot on this one. More publicity for Climategate.
Vallance talked to me off the record for background as well. Mostly about my co-author, Steve Mosher.
which side was gloved hand?
Is it time for another whitewash already?
Who said they were actually hacked?any proof or evidence that points to that?
Instead of trying to address a supposedly commited crime?why didn’t the BBC investigate the contents of the emails and whether sceptics are right.Is that not what a publicly funded broadcaster should be doing.
Thomas, did they try to contact Mosh direct?
Excellent.
The BBC putting out yet another pro AGW piece of rubbish will convince people to look at the sceptic side. Trust in the BBC is now at an all time low thankk goodness.
Anthony, add the CBC (Canada) and ABC (Austrailia) to your list.
Kaboom says:
October 28, 2012 at 9:55 am
“Tuesday would be a good opportunity for unknown folks to release that password then.”
Yes, can you imagine how incredibly irritating it would be if Climategate 3.0 occurs just when the program runs! And good timing for the US election, and Doha.
The BBC: some might describe them as the Jimmy Savile of public broadcasting… Oh, wait a minute…
Same chap rang me up tallbloke.
basically to talk about the hacker.
The anniversary approaches.
If there is no release, you can rest assured that a deal was done.
Previous programmes in the Wednesday 9pm time slot:
24/10/12 The Ice Mountain
Haunted by the sinking of RMS Titanic, this is the story of an iceberg journeying south. (R)
17/10/12 Hallucination: Through the Doors of Perception
Geoff Watts explores the cultural and scientific story of hallucination
10/10/12 Costing the Earth Tsunami Debris
1.5 million tonnes of debris from the Japanese tsunami is heading towards North America
3/10/12 Costing the Earth Wave Goodbye?
Will the promise of energy from the oceans become reality? Tom Heap reports
26/9/12 Costing the Earth Apocalypse Then and Now
The environment of Laos remains scarred by American bombing. Tom Heap joins the clean-up.
19/9/12 Costing the Earth Cruel Harvest
Should our farmland be used to grow fuel for our cars? Tom Heap reports.
12/9/12 Costing the Earth Chinese Salmon
Conor Woodman asks how farmed Scottish salmon production can increase by 50% sustainably
etc.
Perhaps the BBC made room in its schedule by cancelling the Gary Glitter Christmas tribute special.
Chris Vallance investigates, asking if this was it a political crime, and, if so, how effective has it been?
+++++
Absolutely, taxpayers have be bilked out of hundreds of billions of dollars. Manufacturing companies were paid to move to India and China in the name of saving the planet, helping bring the economies of the west to the brink of financial ruin. Bi-fuels have driven food prices sky high, destabilizing much of the rest of the world, setting the stage for wider conflict. The very policies that were supposed to reduce CO2, have increased it, while destabilizing the world both economically and politically.
For those that believe that humans are bad and nature is good, the path to salvation is at hand. Like a gambler on a losing streak, double up the bets. Keep the same policies in place. Lady luck is sure to turn. What could possibly go wrong?
Anthony,
I should think that you have much LESS respect for the BBC, just google “BBC sex scandal”,
the coverup apparently lasting decades by more than a few folks,
The BBC should note that the word “ClimateGate” was coined by the commenter Bulldust on the pages of WUWT. Anthony, the fact that they don’t want to interview you shows that you are right over the target. A few mild utterances of fact and some opinion from you can trigger hysterical reactions from Warmists. Just remember PBS.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#comment-227351
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/telegraphs-booker-on-the-climategate-scandal/
And for many
climate changeCatastrophic Anthropogenic Runaway Global Warming sceptics, the emails were not a surprising revelation of the real thoughts and manoeuvrings of scientists.See the many comments indicating no surprise.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#comment-227351
It took them 3 years to make this? Will they explain why they ignored it when it happened? Did they have to wait for Richard Black to get a cosy job in an NY-Mental group until they could do it?
Oh, for those US folks who may have missed it the BBC is currently locked into a paedophile, child rape, molestation, necrophilic scandal right now. There are hundreds of pages on this emerging scandal.
Google:
“Newsnight Jimmy Saville”
“Jimmy Saville and Garry Glitter”
Why does a publicly funded organization like the BBC dislike people who are skeptical about man made global warming?
Better, google “newsnight jimmy savile” (correct spelling)
It’s an amazing story – a star, essentially created by the BBC was molesting under age girls on BBC premises for decades – and apparently with the knowledge of many BBC managers.
After his death, a BBC Newsnight program to expose it was suppressed and, instead accolades were broadcast over the christmas period.
The assumption being that it was a crime. Those unfamiliar with Pointman’s thesis that the leak was an inside job could do with reading his post on the subject.
So, was climategate a hack after all?
Steven Mosher says:
October 28, 2012 at 10:54 am
Same chap rang me up tallbloke.
basically to talk about the hacker.
The anniversary approaches.
If there is no release, you can rest assured that a deal was done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#
Yes, perhaps the hacker was allowed to release a new paper showing there was an mwp after all.
The term “political crime” is telling. It sounds like it belongs in Stalinist Russia.
Steven Mosher says:
October 28, 2012 at 10:54 am
Same chap rang me up tallbloke.
basically to talk about the hacker.
The anniversary approaches.
If there is no release, you can rest assured that a deal was done.
I don’t think we can make any such assumptions, since we have nothing to go on.
In fairness to our beloved BBC, that licence payer-funded, towering edifice of moral rectitude and political correctness, it must be difficult to remain strictly impartial over AGW when you have your own horse in the race – like a gigantic slice of your employees’ pension funds gambled on “carbon trading” by some, as yet unnamed, lunatic(s) at top management level.
Sparks says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:15 pm
“Why does a publicly funded organization like the BBC dislike people who are skeptical about man made global warming?”
Because they invested all their pension funds in renewable energy and carbon trading.
If the BBC were to call me up, I’d put the phone down. I’d do the same with Fox News, and for the same reasons.
What’s been the longer term consequence? Wind manufacturing shares have been tumbling since 2009 with e.g. Vestas having lost 90% of its value and if the trend continues it will be zero when the Kyoto Commitment comes to an end.
So, the effect has been to prevent the replacement of Kyoto, destroy the wind & solar industry, and it now looks like it will make much of the BBC and UK government look like a bunch of incompetent fools.
The BBC in particular are still preoccupied by outdated single scenario climate models when even climate modellers do not deny they aren’t fit for purpose.
For shares see: http://scef.org.uk/images/stories/news12/kyoto%20ends.png (the lower axis is zero value to shares)
RE: Jimbo 11:45 am
OVER the target? Or IS the target?
The phrase “not catching flak if your not over the target” seems inappropriate here.
I think a phrase that better to fits is, “It’s quiet. Too quiet”
The wonderful irony is that it doesn’t matter if the documentary comes down firmly on the side of the Warmists. The very fact that Climategate is being ‘revisited’ is in itself a good thing because it demonstrates that: the whitewashes did not succeed, interest in the subject is increasing (no one does a radio program about a subject no-one is interested in), and the ‘s’cience is not settled.
An ever wider audience will hear of the discredited Hockey Stick, Mike’s Nature trick, and the hiding of the decline….and no matter what the Warmists say to justify and defend their position ordinary people will inevitably ask themselves why would a ‘S’cientist have to use a ‘trick’ or ‘hide’ anything….a conjuror perhaps but a Scientist?
This going to be the climate equivalent of the Xmas Eulogy by the BBC to Jimmy Saville. I’m gonig to make sure I record it because, it’s going to be a laugh watching it in two months time as Kyoto ends.
Jimbo says:
October 28, 2012 at 11:45 am
I’m told that Roger Tattersall (aka Tallbloke) was interviewed for this. I was not, which is probably their loss since the issue started with WUWT and I have some unique insight. OTOH it is probably just as well,…………….
The BBC should note that the word “ClimateGate” was coined by the commenter Bulldust on the pages of WUWT. Anthony, the fact that they don’t want to interview you shows that you are right over the target. A few mild utterances of fact and some opinion from you can trigger hysterical reactions from Warmists. Just remember PBS.
I always thought it was Delingpole who coined “ClimateGate”. But as Dellers himself says, it was Bulldust.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018246/climategate-how-the-greatest-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation-got-its-name/
tallbloke says:
October 28, 2012 at 9:56 am
“The presenter of this programme, Chris Vallance, rang me up a couple of weeks ago for an ‘off the record chat’ about the police investigation. I got the impression they want to talk about us rather than to us on this one,”
Spot on Roger. This will be an attempt to deflect licence payers from their current minor problem of being a supporter of a piedophile ring. I had to laugh when they announced they were not going to hold their own enquiry and would leave it to the police and then suddenly realised it was going to be enormous and so would hold two enquiries of their own. I was waiting for them to announce Lord whitewash of East Anglia and their Science correspondent at the RS, Jones.
They are just pathetic but they believe they have untold power and the ears of parliament.
John A says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:50 pm
If the BBC were to call me up, I’d put the phone down. I’d do the same with Fox News, and for the same reasons.
Why? Disabusing people of their prejudice and preconception involves talking to them. Gently does it.
Climategate for Halloween, fits BBC if halloween is about the fears that haunt you. The truth and an honest appraisal of the known facts would be a horror at BBC. Does R.I.C.O apply to British quasi journalists?
DirkH says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Sparks says:
October 28, 2012 at 12:15 pm
“Why does a publicly funded organization like the BBC dislike people who are skeptical about man made global warming?”
Because they invested all their pension funds in renewable energy and carbon trading.
I don’t know to what extent this is an urban myth, but ‘all’ is definitely over-egging it.
http://www.ipe.com/news/bbc-pension-fund-transfers-investment-management-from-cbre-to-orchard_46051.php#.UI2RbMU4nKM
Just as long as they don’t use a past interview with Jimmy Savile.
The real crime was the way the BBC covered [up] the whole story in first place. No I don’t mean Savile, though they did that too of course.
At the moment the BBC is involved in the biggest scandal of its career over the Jimmy Saville affiar (s).It desperately needs some credibilty.
The corpse of the consensus continues to twitch. I suspect maggots chomping on the peripheral nerves.
The ABC (Australia), BBC (UK), CBC (Canada) are all cast from the same mould of public deception for a Noble Cause. The black gloved hand could be their own at work hiding the inconvenient Truth..
It is very unwise for sceptics to talk to the BBC. Its policy re. AGW is clearly stated i.e. not to take a balanced attitude but emphasise the ;’validity’ of the warmist case. What is amazing as a taxpayer funded organisation with a mandate to provide a balanced view its stated policy has not even raised a whimper in the MSM or even parliament.
I haven’t heard the final programme, or been sent a transcript. Martin Rosenbaum, Chris Vallance and Catherine Donegan visited UEA where they interviewed myself for an hour and I believe also interviewed Andy Watson, Mike Hulme, and a representative of the Norfolk police. The previous week they travelled to Scotland to interview Andrew Montford.
I was impressed by all three who seemed to have an open mind. It will be interesting to hear the final programme.
John A & stephen richards –
surely the biggest laugh has been BBC’s appointment of two Murdoch-connected individuals to carry out their internal post-Savilegate investigations, when BBC led the ferocious attack on the Murdoch media in the phone hacking scandal. for me, the MSM is a means for keeping the fake left/right divide going. in fact, these appointments remind me of Murdoch-connected Neil wallis being brought in for damage control by UEA post Climategate. it was fun to watch the left-CAGWers try to spin Wallis’s appointment (via Outside Organisaton), given the left’s laughable meme that Murdoch is anti-CAGW!
(BBC Director-General George) Entwistle told MPs he was bringing in Dinah Rose QC – who represented News International in phone hacking cases – to look at how the BBC handles sexual harassment cases.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2222203/Jimmy-Savile-sexual-abuse-scandal-NINE-BBC-employees-frame.html
Jimmy Savile and the BBC: Who’s who
Nick Pollard
Former head of Sky News Nick Pollard has been asked by the BBC to investigate why the Newsnight investigation was dropped last year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20028188
tallbloke:
I’d be concerned if I were you. This is about Climate Gate and the unknown “hacker” and “…the computer equipment of Roger Tattersall were seized by the Police during this investigation…” add some misconstrued comments from yourself and don’t be surprised by the innuendo. Don’t forget, this is the BBC (the propaganda arm of the Council of Europe).
IanG
‘Chris Vallance investigates, asking if this was it a political crime, and, if so, how effective has it been?’
That’s all you really need to know ., another hit piece claiming ‘conspricy ‘ probable with some BS throw in about tobacco too and in the end lots of nonsense about how the ‘enquires ‘ proved the science was sound , despite the fact they never looked at it. One question may be how much a ‘poor victim’ will they make out the Team to be ? Other than that the normal BBC approach of full on and unquestioning support of ‘the cause ‘ is to be expected and I would not be surprised if they try to claim the ‘hide the decline ‘ was other than it was has they done that before .
Let me see if I can help you get to the bottom of their bias.
Exhibit 1
Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change – Members…….BBC Pension Trust……..
http://www.iigcc.org/about-us/members
Exhibit 2
Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century
http://tinyurl.com/8d9rabv
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/safeguarding_impartiality.html
I maybe wrong but here are the investments made on behalf of BBC pension holders.
BBC Pension Trust – Top equity investments at 31 March 2012
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
Hyundai Motor 9.14
Chevron Corp 8.71
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml
“I’m told that Roger Tattersall (aka Tallbloke) was interviewed for this. I was not, which is probably their loss since the issue started with WUWT and I have some unique insight. OTOH it is probably just as well, as I have about as much respect for the BBC as I do PBS, being cast from the same government media mold.”
Anthony, it’s easy to imagine what the BBC will do to Tallbloke’s words. Selective editing and cherry-picking sound bites to suit their pro-CAGW agenda will do a hatchet job on him. I’m sure the BBC editors will go out of their way to make Tallbloke look ridiculous in the public eye by twisting everything he says and leaving important bits out. So probably just as well they didn’t ask you as well. Not all publicity is good publicity.
The BBC is a news and entertainment organisation. Therefore, their view is that of the received consensus, and not that of impartial radiative/atmospheric physics.
Jimbo says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm
“I maybe wrong but here are the investments made on behalf of BBC pension holders.”
Not exactly – those are the ones that still have value – so you don’t see past misadventures into carbon trading or renewables – they either have collapsed, lost their value, or the portfolio manager has exchanged them into something more stable.
pat says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:01 pm
“given the left’s laughable meme that Murdoch is anti-CAGW!”
After climategate the WSJ was one of the few outlets that reported. He might not be anti CAGW; but at least not as fanatically warmist as the BBC.
Stephen Rasey says:
October 28, 2012 at 10:03 am
Odds are that the report will conclude that the only wrong-doers were those who trafficed in stolen documents. Hence the gloved hand above.
Telling the story of the crimes detailed WITHIN the documents cannot be told in an hour.
Actually the programme is only 28 minutes. Basically a box-ticking exercise to say the BBC has addressed an issue in some way.
Lewandowsky’s new study has some very COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE advice:
29 Oct: The Conversation: Sunanda Creagh: Scientific consensus shifts public opinion on climate change
People are more likely to believe that humans cause global warming if they are told that 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that it does, a new study has found.
Despite overwhelming evidence showing that human activity is causing the planet to overheat, public concern is on the wane, said the study, titled The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science and published in the journal Nature Climate Change on Monday.
“One reason for this decline is the ‘manufacture of doubt’ by political and vested interests, which often challenge the existence of the scientific consensus. The role of perceived consensus in shaping public opinion is therefore of considerable interest,” the study’s authors said…
Lead researcher Stephan Lewandowsky from the Cognitive Science Laboratories at the University of Western Australia said the study involved two surveys…
The control group was asked about their views on the causes of climate change but the consensus group, however, was first told that 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that global warming is a direct consequence of the burning of fossil fuels by humans.
People in the consensus group were much more likely to say that human activity caused climate change, even if their political views were otherwise broadly in line with free market ideologies that eschew the government regulation required to curb emissions.
“So providing the consensus information is boosting acceptance, particularly for those people who would otherwise reject the evidence based on their world view,” said Prof Lewandowsky…
The study showed it was important for scientific communicators and journalists to tell their audience that the vast majority of climate change experts believe that human activity is causing global warming.
“It is reaching even those people who would normally tune out when you tell them the evidence,” Prof Lewandowsky said, adding that journalists should not give denialists and climate change experts equal air time.
“The media is being irresponsible if they are pretending there is a scientific debate in light of this consensus.”…
http://theconversation.edu.au/scientific-consensus-shifts-public-opinion-on-climate-change-10356
@ pat October 28, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Your posting and URL (http://theconversation.edu.au/scientific-consensus-shifts-public-opinion-on-climate-change-10356) are truly scary, especially the “credits”:
“The Conversation provides independent analysis and commentary from academics and researchers.
“We are funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, Canberra, CDU, Deakin, Flinders, Griffith, La Trobe, Murdoch, QUT, Swinburne, UniSA, UTAS, UWS and VU.”
I have a PG degree from Melbourne. Is it worth anything any more?
IanM
I thought climate science was being conducted properly when I first heard of the emails, and I had no interest in reading them. Ironically, I was about the 4th person in the world to check out the climategate 2 drop, but having no experience with the original, I was about the 7th person to download FOIA 2.
What BBC seems to fail to grasp is, how would emails compromise political action unless there was something in the emails exposing badly done science. If the science was being done properly, the email release would have bolstered so called action on climate change.
Quite right, though I doubt I could be as reasonable under the same circumstances. Hearing BBC presenters on the radio, I sometimes get the impression that they are genuinely trying harder to be sensible about the matter, but simply have little clue about who/where to get-the-other-side of a “science-story.”
Actually employing more people (some?) with Science Ph.D. s to talk or write about science doesn’t seem to have gained much currency yet at the BBC. They ought to be offering TallBloke a job.
The last thing the Beebs should be doing is putting up pictures of gloved hands surfing the internet. Google “Jimmy Savile”.
“Jimbo says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm
BBC Pension Trust – Top equity investments at 31 March 2012
Occidental 11.53”
I knew of “Big Oil and “Big Tobacco” were some of the BBC’s investments but Occidental? Isn’t that Al Gore’s oil and coal business which contributed to the major chunk of his wealth?
“OTOH it is probably just as well, as I have about as much respect for the BBC as I do PBS, being cast from the same government media mold.”
[+emphasis]
I don’t know if it was intended or not but that’s a nice double entendre.
Here’s the counter to that argument from consensus: I speculate that the majority of the alarmed “climate scientists” in those 97% surveys are not specialists in the CAUSES of climate change (attribution), but in the impacts of and remedies for such change. Their opinion that the cause of global warming is CO2 carries no more weight than that of any other non-climate scientist. It a was slick equivocation, highly successful until now, for the pollsters to use “climate scientist” in two senses to impute expertise in climate-change causation to a group of “climate scientists” that lack it. It was unethical to have kept this sample-bias in the background or under the rug. The “consensus” might be mostly an artefact, the product of CON-CENSUSes.
The surveys showing a high consensus on an anthropogenic cause of global warming restricted their sample to scientists with the highest number of publication on the topic (one survey set the bar at 20 articles with the word “climate” in each). Who won’t usually fit this profile? Scientists who study the causes of global warming, primarily chemists, physicists, and atmospheric specialists. (Modelers are a borderline case.) Their findings and cogitations are based on hard (difficult) science, which ought to reduce their publication rate to far below that of biologists and environmentalists who write about possible impacts or remedies.
This is powerful ammo. Its force, if true, is amplified by the fact that the truth has been twisted and concealed for so long by so many warmists. And by the way no critical thinking was applied to the claim by journalists–or by the supposed champions of critical thinking, the capital-S “Skeptics” of the CSICOP sect.
I urge high-profile climate contrarians (hopefully R.G. Brown) “carry the ball” further if they think I might be right; and, if I am, to make an enormous stink about it. (I’m going to repost this on Tips and Notes. Anyone may copy and post it elsewhere.)
judging on how they handled the Savile affair, i think you’re better off ‘out’ of this little escapade Anthony.
The BBC Pension Trust should put its money where its big mouth is. Talk green but invest in red. This is why we call them hypocritical watermelons. Heck, even Al Gore’s investment outfit is moving away from ‘green’ investments. It was all about the money. Follow the money folks >>>>>
BBC’s capitalistic investments in Big Oil and tobacco and very little green
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml
Al Gore suddenly shy of green
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11727215/1/al-gore-walks-away-from-green-energy.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN#
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1375534/000117266112000799/generation2q12.txt
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/opinion/brooks-a-sad-green-story.html?_r=0
No one contacted me about being questioned by Norfolk Police just because I made an FOI request, though the BBC had featured me on a previous news item
Jimbo:
The links you provide in your at October 29, 2012 at 1:04 am are pertinent and informative. Thankyou.
As you say concerning the now existing BBC Pension Fund investments
This shows a rapid retreat from ‘green’ investments by the BBC Pension Fund. Only three years ago that Pension Fund was heavily involved in ‘green’ investments (as anybody can check with a web search).
Hence, reasons for the BBC’s official policy of bias on AGW have reduced.
It will be interesting to hear the upcoming program on Radio4. Either it will
(a) continue the BBC’s bias (so show no signs of movement from the BBC’s official policy of bias on AGW)
Or
(b) provide a reduced degree of BBC bias (so show signs of movement from the BBC’s official policy of bias on AGW).
I hope – but doubt – the program will be a seminal moment.
Richard
The truth will not emerge. It’s the BBC we are talking about here.
This is not a surprise for Bishop Hill readers.
Andrew M mentioned this on his blog in his understated manner a few weeks ago.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/10/3/my-day.html
“A busy, but satisfying day yesterday. I did a long, in-depth interview with BBC radio for a forthcoming programme about the impact of Climategate on the global warming debate. This is to be broadcast on 31st of the month. The interviewer was Chris Vallance, who I haven’t come across before, but the show was being produced by FOI correspondent Martin Rosenbaum. I think having the show run by someone from outside the ranks of the green correspondents should give this programme a rather different feel to the norm.”
richardscourtney says:
As you say concerning the now existing BBC Pension Fund investments
BBC’s capitalistic investments in Big Oil and tobacco and very little green
This shows a rapid retreat from ‘green’ investments by the BBC Pension Fund.
It’s just sound commercial sense as Renewable Investment plummet ahead of the end of the Kyoto commitment.
Just a few facts:
Wind turbine manufacturing shares are heading to zero with Vestas falling by 90%
Siemens is selling up solar
A Chinese Solar exhibition has been cancelled
The Indians are now blaming the EU for the end of Kyoto
The EU is blaming the Polish (who scuppered any common approach)
The Polish ought to point to the fact that the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Spain, etc.) have suddenly found that they have a huge cost to pay under their Kyoto commitments – which they cannot afford.
The treaty is already legally dead (it cannot be amended to keep the commitment going)
And just to give you an indication of how completely unaware the UK public are and how big this could blow up, I searched in the Scotsman newspaper and there was only one article in the last year that even mentioned Kyoto.
Given the media’s willingness to blatantly run cover for the ‘scientists’, I’ve always thought that a much better name for the whole thing should have been climediagate which I would simply define this way…. The result of a coupling of intimate diseased partners and the exposure of their actions (hmmmm…. Sounds like ‘chlamydia’ too).
One other aspect…. By calling it a ‘hacking’, what does the BBC know that no one else seems to know including the police that investigated? I’ve always thought the surreptitious release was an inside job from somebody who got fed up with what she/he saw going on and I don’t think that qualitifes as a ‘hacking’.
Of Course, no review of Climategate would be complete without this:
Climategate Hide The Decline Song
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tribunal_information_refusal/
Timely reminder of the BBC’s unprecedented decision to abandon impartiality.
What are they trying to hide?
I was impressed by all three who seemed to have an open mind. It will be interesting to hear the final programme.
PAUL, These people are good at hiding their intentions. They suck you in with inuendo and lies and spit you out on the pavement when you cannot retaliate.
BEWARE OF THE BBC. They are AGW confirmed and pedophiles under investigation. !!!
Paul Matthews says:
October 29, 2012 at 3:30 am
This is not a surprise for Bishop Hill readers.
Andrew M mentioned this on his blog in his understated manner a few weeks ago.
The Bish keeps getting sucked in by these people. The MetOff did it and now the BBC. We will see how it pans out. I hope that the Bish is not too dissappointed. Incidently, in french we don’t really have a word for ‘disappointed’ we use ‘decieved’.
(BBC Director-General George) Entwistle told MPs he was bringing in Dinah Rose QC – who represented News International in phone hacking cases – to look at how the BBC handles sexual harassment cases.
Dyno Rod would probably do a better job. :))
thomaswfuller2 says:
October 28, 2012 at 10:28 am
Vallance talked to me off the record for background as well. Mostly about my co-author, Steve Mosher.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OFF THE RECORD IN BROADCASTING CIRCLES. these people are animals without scruples and without shame. How many politicians have been caught by the ‘off the record’ même. Hundreds.
The BBC has had a long relationship with MI5. The Security Service used to vet the BBC’s staff and provided background briefs to the BBC on allegedly radical and subversive political groups. The vetting and influence of MI5 was supposedly scaled back in 1985.
The 18th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC and the 8th session of the Conference of the Parties is due to take place from 26 November to 7 December 2012 at the Qatar National Convention Centre in Doha, Qatar. There is no doubt concern that another tranche of emails exposing yet more misbehavior amongst ‘the team’ will be made public just prior to the conference opening. So, never trust the motives of the BBC.
Who were the SECRET 28 who ended all climate debate at the BBC?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tribunal_information_refusal/
there is nothing in the documents to undermine the validity of mainstream climate science.
I’m sorry, but didn’t anyone else notice this? Doesn’t all the work done here, at CA and elsewhere on the e-mails pretty much highlight this as not an error, not “spin”, not “whitewashing”, but as an *abject lie*?
Mind you, I trust a reporter about as far as I can comfortably spit out a live tarantula, but still.
I’d be astonished if the BBC actually did an unbiased report on this. I don’t think they actually understand Science any more. Neither does Robert Winston according to the Daily Mail. Maybe they dumbed down their reporters at the same time as they dumbed down their programs.
Thanks! I had forgotten how good that was.
We’ll know the BBC has changed its stripes when it airs that ditty on its program.
BTW, why do you suppose Michael Mann never sued Minnesotans 4 Global Warming? It’s easily as damning as anything Mark Steyn wrote.
Oh! I know! Not deep enough pockets!
/Mr Lynn
Explaining the basic principle is relatively simple: spread your left thumb and forefinger apart in a horizontal plane, about 90 to 120 degrees apart–this represents the window for radiant heat leaving the Earth’s atmosphere, when viewed from above. Then with your right hand held vertically, push your right index finger against the junction of your left thumb and forefinger. Looking down, that represents the contribution of CO2 to reducing the window for heat flow–in other words, the CO2 greenhouse effect. Then, with your right hand held vertically, uncurl your other three fingers and note that the blocked area is relatively unchanged because you are viewing those four fingers edge on. That represents the basic effect of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere–as regards the greenhouse effect.
Each finger represents the 15 micron, CO2 absorption band. This edge-on view is why the effect of added CO2 is logarithmic rather than cumulative or exponential.
What’s this about hacking?
The climategate emails were leaked in the public interest by an insider with a conscience at UEA.
The first report on the BBC website about Climategate was so biased that I called for the author to be sacked. I don’t expect this program to contain objective reporting but one can always hope.
“For some climate change sceptics, the emails were a disturbing revelation of the real thoughts and manoeuvrings of scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Centre and their international colleagues. The scientists argue that while some of the phrasing may have been unfortunate, there is nothing in the documents to undermine the validity of mainstream climate science.”
Paint me skeptic. If there was nothing there but normal emails, then why did it achieve the worldwide consequences that they are studying? Everybody was shocked reading normal emails and some sceptics who misunderstood and misinterpreted some phrases?
Ignoring what’s in the emails does not make it any better, the starting point is wrong, I fear the result should fit in the class “wrong but accurate”. It is long since I watched BBC, will read tomorrow on WUWT the feedback…
Starting in 15 minutes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_four
Friends:
I have just heard the radio show.
Amazing! By BBC standards it was balanced and fair.
It gave views of representatives of both ‘sides’ and views of journalists on the effects of both climategate releases. It suggested that Climategate 3 may be imminent.
A representative of the Norfolk police gave an account of their investigation.
Steve McIntyre gave an impressive performance as an example of reason.
I commend everyone to listen to it on BBC Radio Player. Yes, I know it is from the BBC but it is not the usual BBC extreme pro-AGW propaganda.
Richard
As expected, typical bloody BBC bias – scientists versus sceptics. yes, the scientists are the ones whose emails were hacked but never a suggestion that there are many and well qualified scientists on the side of scepticism. Even Mann was paraded as one who had been traduced. I could go on … bastards.
In case you missed it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b01nl8gm?rpSt=climategate+revisited&rpSrp=2.0
stephen richards says:
October 29, 2012 at 10:47 am
“THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OFF THE RECORD IN BROADCASTING CIRCLES. these people are animals without scruples and without shame. How many politicians have been caught by the ‘off the record’ même. Hundreds.”
Now there’s an idea. Isn’t it the BBC that has / had a program called ‘On the Record’ ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/otr/
What Stephen’s observation suggests, sound much more interesting…