Reposted from the GelbspanFiles
By Russel Cook
Did the BBC finally admit fault or effectively defend their broadcast podcast report from August 3, 2020 (and its days-earlier internet-only release), in which the fossil fuel industry stood accused of colluding with skeptic climate scientists to spread disinformation that undercut the otherwise ‘settled science’ of human-induced global warming? Read their official response for yourself. We report, you decide.
To reiterate first:
- my July 31, 2020 blog post, “BBC Radio 4 vs Rush Limbaugh: ‘How They Made Us Doubt Everything’ Episode 6 ‘Reposition Global Warming as theory, not fact’” — on the elemental faults with the accusation within the podcast report about ‘leaked memos’ that supposedly were evidence for the accusation.
- my August 5, 2020 “BBC Radio 4 vs Rush Limbaugh, Pt 2: ‘I don’t remember this stupid ad.’” — the late radio show host reacts to the BBC podcast report and a particular false line in it.
- my October 6, 2020 “BBC ( sort of … ) Corrects Radio 4…” — where the correction explained nothing while making one error bigger.
- my July 9, 2021 “Status Update: my complaint to BBC … ” — in which the senior editorial staff at Radio 4 basically only dug a deeper hole for themselves, via what is described as the Stage 1 part of the BBC Complaints system.
Now, what follows is the August 17th, 2021 verbatim response (in the identical format, including boldface / italicized typeface and links) emailed to me as an attached PDF file form from the Stage 2 BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU). The next blog post will be my response to BBC ECU, with particular regard to the way the ECU responder apparently failed to understand that his defense against the key parts of my complaint concerned “plans” that were never implemented in any form anywhere and therefore cannot serve as evidence that the fossil fuel industry carried out disinformation campaigns designed to undercut ‘established science.’ I assume that will only be met with a response to take my complaint one further step up to the UK broadcasting regulator, Ofcom.
————————————————————————
Ref: CAS-6241179
17 August 2021
Dear Mr Cook
“How They Made Us Doubt Everything, Radio 4, 3 August 2020”
I am writing to let you know the outcome of the Executive Complaints Unit’s investigation into your recent complaint. I am sorry it has taken so long for your
complaint to reach this point. I hope I can now address the concerns you have raised.
I have understood you to say there were three significant errors in the programme. I therefore propose to address each in turn. I have summarised the nature of your complaint for convenience but I have taken account of all the previous correspondence and carried out some additional research into the matters you have raised. I should explain the remit of the Executive Complaints Unit is to decide whether there has been a serious breach of the standards expressed in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. The most relevant guidelines in this case are those on Accuracy.
1. It was incorrect to present two sets of leaked industry memos as evidence proving the fossil fuel industry engaged in deceptive disinformation campaigns. The two proposals in the memos were never implemented. A strategy to “reposition global warming as theory, not fact” was rejected by the Information Council for the Environment.
The series set out to explore the extent to which doubt can and has been used to influence public opinion, with specific reference to the link between tobacco and cancer, and human-induced climate change. In the first episode, for example, there were interviews with two scientists working for Exxon at the end of the 1980s who claimed their employers were aware their research predicted burning fossils fuels would create unprecedented increases in global temperatures. The programme drew attention to subsequent public statements by the company which appeared to ignore that research and take a different approach. It quoted the company’s Chief Executive, for example, as saying “Currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate” despite the findings of its own scientists. It also quoted a presentation given to the Board of Directors in 1989 and a memo from Exxon’s Public Affairs Manager in 1988 which said the company position was to “Emphasise the uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced greenhouse effect“. Listeners were, therefore, already aware there was evidence energy companies appeared to be trying to influence public opinion; they were also made aware, it should be said, of the denials issued by companies such as Exxon.
In episode six, in particular, the programme looked at how oil companies, think tanks and scientists sceptical about the evidence for human-induced climate change came together in the late 1980s and 1990s to discuss how to influence public opinion on global warming. It focused on two documents which were drawn up. It explained the Global Climate Science Communications Team produced an Action Plan in April 1998. Its members included representatives from Exxon Corp, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, and the Marshall Institute among others. The second document was a strategy drawn up in 1991 for a group representing the electricity industry which became known as the Information Council for the Environment.
I have listened to the programme a number of times and I do not agree the manner in which the documents were presented and discussed was likely to mislead the audience in any material way. Listeners were told the aim of the two groups I have referred to above was “to discuss how to influence public opinion on global warming“. The evidence does, I think, suggest elements within the US energy industry worked with scientists and campaign groups on potential ways to counteract the view of those who said climate change posed a genuine threat. The documents mentioned in the programme served to illustrate this approach.
The programme referred repeatedly, in both cases, to “a plan” and so it is reasonable to assume the audience would understand the documents contained considered ideas, proposals and methodologies to influence public opinion. It is, I think, undeniable both plans indicate a concerted effort to produce a strategy to challenge the science, and to affect the way the media reported the evidence for human-induced climate change. The strategies were detailed, costed, supported by survey data and had a clearly defined goal. The programme included specific details from the 1991 campaign based on contemporaneous documents.
The fact you assert these particular strategies were not implemented does not, in my view, alter the editorial justification for drawing attention to the undeniable efforts which were made to seek to influence public and political opinion on climate change. Furthermore, in apparent contradiction to your assertion, I have seen documents which indicate the Information Council for the Environment did run a test campaign in three US towns from May 1991, which included newspaper and radio advertisements. This is confirmed by copies of newspaper articles from the time which indicate adverts were placed in the three towns in Kentucky, Arizona and North Dakota.
An article in the Bowling Green Daily News published on 23 May 1991 quotes “ICE representative Ivan Brandon” and reports him as saying the newspaper adverts began in early May and would run for several weeks. It said:
The Information Council for the Environment, a coalition of utilities and energy issue-related organizations, has targeted Bowling Green, Flagstaff, Ariz., and Fargo, N.D., for a $500,000 advertising blitz to test the water of global warming beliefs among residents. “Within the scientific community there is a split on this”, ICE representative Ivan Brandon said today. “Nobody disagrees that global warming exists, but the disagreement within the scientific community is over whether it is catastrophic” or even as much a worry as many assert.”
The article concluded:
After the advertisements end, residents will be polled about their beliefs on global warming. The results of the polls will be used to decide whether to carry the message to other cities, he said.
An article in the Arizona Daily Sun published the following day on 24 May 1991 said:
Through radio and newspaper ads running in Flagstaff and two other test markets, Fargo ND and Bowling Green – ICE is ‘trying to get all the information out about global warming’ said ICE spokesman Ivan Brandon.
That evidence would appear to indicate a plan to influence public opinion on global warming was implemented, even if only on a small scale, and was a precursor to a potentially wider roll out.
It’s also worth noting the programme explicitly stated, through a quote from Myron Ebell, the purpose of the later 1998 plan and the reason why it was not put into
practice:
Myron Ebell (voiced by actor): The purpose was to formulate a strategy to defeat senate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in 1998. The plan was never put into effect when it became apparent then President Clinton was not going to submit the treaty to the Senate.
On the basis of the evidence I have seen, therefore, I can find no basis for concluding the details of the plans were misrepresented, the aims of those who drew them up were misrepresented or the extent to which they can be regarded as serious proposals was misrepresented.
I therefore do not believe there are grounds to uphold this aspect of your complaint.
2. It was inaccurate to suggest U.S. radio show host Rush Limbaugh knowingly colluded with one particular ‘campaign’. The advert was not broadcast by him but listeners were led to assume it was.
My understanding is ICE arranged for adverts to be played on three local radio stations as part of the initial campaign in 1991 I have described above. I have seen copies of relevant local newspaper articles and ICE documents, including the one from the Arizona Daily Sun cited above, which indicate the adverts were played out. As you will recall, the programme included a version of a radio advert, using an actor’s voice, which it said was broadcast by the talk radio presenter, Rush Limbaugh, in 1991:
Voice Over of Advert: Global warming. I know you’ve been seeing more and more stories about the global warming theory. Stories that paint a horrible picture. Stories that say the polar ice caps will melt. Well, get real! Stop panicking. I’m here to tell you that the facts simply don’t jibe with the theory that catastrophic global warming is taking place. So folks, grab hold of yourselves and get the whole story before you make up your mind. Right now you can get a free packet of easy to understand information about global warming. Just call this number 1-800…
Peter Pomerantsev: This advert you’re hearing was sent to the radio host Rush Limbaugh in 1991.
Voice Over of Advert: Call today because the best environment policy is based on fact.
Kert Davies: So Rush Limbaugh was the most widely listened to Conservative talk show host at that time on radio stations across the country. We have the language that Rush Limbaugh read on the air.
PP: And who was behind it? Well this was written by a group calling themselves the Information Council on the Environment. Again, it sounds like it is going to be run by an environmental lobby group but it is run by the group that represents the electrical companies in America.
I appreciate you think this gave the impression Mr Limbaugh knowingly colluded with this one particular ‘campaign’” and implied the advert was “broadcast to his audience of millions“. I have some sympathy with this aspect of your complaint because I think the language used in the programme was not as clear as it could have been. The radio advertisement campaign was limited to three towns and the intention, according to ICE documents, was for Mr Limbaugh to pre-record one of three adverts to be broadcast on a local station in Fargo. My understanding is the advert was to be played out during the local advert break in his national show.
In my opinion, the description provided by the programme-makers didn’t make that clear and I can see how some listeners might have assumed the advert was played on every station across the United States which broadcast Mr Limbaugh’s show. However, in order for me to consider this lack of clarity to amount to a serious breach of the BBC’s editorial standards, it would be necessary for the audience to have been left with a seriously misleading impression. On balance, I don’t think that was the case. Listeners may have assumed the advert was broadcast to a nationwide audience rather than on one local station but, regardless of how many radio stations broadcast it, the editorial justification for including it in the programme was to draw attention to the language used and the approach taken to cast doubt in people’s minds about the extent to which global warming was a genuine cause for concern. The fact the campaign adopted the use of phrases such as “Stop panicking. I’m here to tell you that the facts simply don’t jibe with the theory that catastrophic global warming is taking place” gave the audience a sense of the tone of the campaign and how it sought to cast doubt on the scientific evidence. That, I think, is true regardless of the number of people who heard the advert.
I therefore do not believe there are grounds to uphold this aspect of your complaint.
3. The episode incorrectly suggested the intention of one campaign was to target “lower educated white males”. The word “white” does not appear in any of the memos about the proposed campaign. The correction on the BBC Sounds and BBC website pages is an inadequate remedy.
The programme included a contribution from Kert Davies of the Climate Investigations Centre in which he referred to campaign strategies which were suggested on the basis of benchmark surveys carried out in the three areas in 1991 and which apparently informed the ICE Test Market Proposal. As I am sure you are aware, the survey document suggests “two possible target audiences” one of which was “those who are most receptive to messages describing the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronunciations on global warming“. This is how it was reported in the programme broadcast on Radio 4 (the version on BBC Sounds contains a slightly longer extract from the strategy document):
Kert Davies: They talk about targeting lower educated white males and they have, like, specific demographics that they are going to target. It’s that mercenary. Let me find the exact quote. Here it says …
Voice Over: One possible target audience includes older, lesser educated males from larger households who are not typically information seekers. They are good targets for radio advertisements. Another possible target segment is younger low income women. They are likely to believe the earth is warming and to think the problem is serious. However, they are also likely to soften their support for federal legislation after hearing new information on global warming.
Kert Davies: So they are targeting those two audiences, seeing if they can bend the needle from what they’ve already secured as the baseline data, that people are very concerned about this.
Peter Pomerantsev: For me, this document is one of the most revealing things I’ve seen while making this series. It shows how, in 1991, pollsters had already clocked that what they called low educated, older, white males could be swayed on climate change.
It’s clear both Mr Davies and the presenter, Peter Pomerantsev, referred to “white males” whereas the extract from the campaign proposal only mentioned “older, lesser educated males“. I agree it would have been better if they had avoided an interpretation which was not in the actual wording and I think it’s appropriate this has been acknowledged on the relevant BBC Website and BBC Sounds pages. Such mistakes obviously shouldn’t occur.
However, I don’t regard the reference to “white males” in this context as likely to have misled the audience in a significant manner. As I stated above, in order for this to be materially misleading, and therefore in breach of the BBC’s editorial standards, there would have to be persuasive evidence the “older, lesser educated males from larger households” identified by the benchmark surveys were not likely to be predominantly white, or that older, white men would not make up a significant proportion of the group considered as “good targets for radio advertisements“. The initial surveys were conducted in Chattanooga in Tennessee, Fargo in North Dakota, and Flagstaff in Arizona. The vast majority of people in each town are white, according to the United States Census Bureau, and my research indicates that was also the case in the early 1990s. A census published in 1990 indicates 79.6% of the population of Hamilton County in Tennessee, which includes Chattanooga, was white. The census for Arizona shows the population of Flagstaff City was 79.6% white. The census for North Dakota shows 97.6% of Cass County, which includes Fargo, was white.
I therefore do not have grounds to uphold this aspect of your complaint.
There is no further right of appeal against this decision within the BBC’s complaints process but if you do wish to take the matter further, it is open to you to ask the broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, to consider your complaint. You can find details of how to contact Ofcom and the procedures it will apply at the following website: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/how-to-report-a-complaint. You can also write to Ofcom at Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA, or telephone either 0300 123 3333 or 020 7981 3040.
Yours sincerely
Colin Tregear
Complaints Director
The first person to get the BBC to admit they got something wrong will deserve a Nobel Prize. They are always right.
Even when admitting a proveable misquote, what the BBC said is what the person meant. They never mislead by omission either.
It’s a corrupt organisation.
The BBC has always been very biased towards socialism .
So when the UN invented Global Warming /Climate change to try to bring about a ” One World Socialist Government ” , the BBC have gone along with their lies to the exclusion of the truth and any real facts .
It does go all the way back to WW2 , when it tried to keep Churchill quiet about the Nazi threat .
George Orwell,s book 1984 was written in 1948 warning about Socialism taking over , and he based the ” Ministry Of Truth ” on his time of working for the BBC
In 2006 the BBC held a ” secret ” meeting where they decided to only tell the AGM lies and not allow any real facts on their programs . [ Look up 28 Gate ].
So it is not surprising that there are T Shirts & posters with, ” Is that true , or did you hear it on the BBC ? “
But is that true, or did you hear it on the BBC ?
Biased?
“I am writing to let you know the outcome of the Executive Complaints Unit’s investigation into your recent complaint…There is no further right of appeal against this decision within the BBC’s complaints process but if you do wish to take the matter further, it is open to you to ask the broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, to consider your complaint.”
An Orwellian chill reverberated down my spine. Persist and the broadcasting regulator Ofcom will strap you down and release the starving rats, Mr. Smith. All hail Big Brother!
Upside down proxies again… we can all rest knowing it ‘doesnt matter’ either.
As I commented yesterday-
Goebbels would be very impressed by how the BBC conducts itself these days.
Nonsense. The BBC is one of the world’s most balanced and honest broadcasters.
It is just reality doesn’t conform to some peoples expectations.
Griff, your reply says more about you than it does about the BBC.
Watch where you step when walking near the BBC buildings, you might get some on your shoe…And it can’t be removed! Griff has obviously walked there daily. His comments reek of BBC
No /sarc tag?
The BBC has never been balanced and has never been completely honest – less so since the 70’s and early 80’s. I learned early on never to trust a story from the BBC but always listen to foreign news services – in a lot of cases the Beeb didn’t bother to run important world event’s, in others they distorted events to suit their own agenda. It’s breached it’s charter so many times, in so many ways that it should’ve been shut down years ago. They occasionally make one or two good programmes, but even those have seriously declined in quality – rescued only by the excellent actors which it can still attract.
Yea, ask Princess Diana, I’m sure she’ll agree…….
What’s that griff? Speak up. Did you say Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, Dave Lee Travis and Gary Glitter?
Stuart Hall. Davel Lee Travis wasn’t a child rapist, but 4 out of 5 is a shocking ratio, whatever.
That his sexual offenses (he was found guilty on at least one count) didn’t involve minors doesn’t negate them. Just means he wasn’t as bad at the other 4 mentioned persons.
“The BBC is one of the world’s most balanced and honest broadcasters.”
That once was true, but that was a long, long time before you were born, griff.
BBC ‘abandons impartiality’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4413474/BBC-abandons-impartiality-on-warming.html
Emily Maitlis breached impartiality guidelines … – bbc.co.uk (she does it all the time and so do many of her colleagues)
SECRET 28 ‘scientific experts’ who Greened the BBC
The list is endless.
If you’d like a date as to when it really did go climate partisan it was 26th January 2006
Notwithstanding, approximately 0% of the world’s broadcasters are honest and balanced.
As I pointed out to griff, it was a long, long time ago.
The media are all part of “Covering Climate Now”
Newspapers (and broadcasters) were NEVER “balanced”. But in the past they were more open about their bias. It’s become fashionable to claim to be impartial, and people actually believe the claim.
I was going to bring that up if no one else did. Especially newspapers, the old ones in the U.S. would often put the name of the party in the name of their paper; The Republican this or the Democrat that.
The thing was, it seems they kept their biases to the editorial pages, unless they could gin up a scandal against a political adversary as “news”. That’s ‘as best I know’ of newspaper history.
News was separate and we had reporters – not journalists – who reported the Who What When Where How and How Many. Reporters took pride in being reporters and getting things first and right.
Sensationalism was OK to get eyeballs, but the facts had to be right.
Nowadays? Every kid is a Jurinalist (Swedish pronunciation) and is trying to Change The World according to their leftist J-School indoctrination.
–
–
–
For a couple of years, my mom was an unpaid reporter for a local weekly paper. At least people knew whose cat had kittens and by golly, the count of how many was accurate. Rarely was the perp tom tracked down. There are limits to investigative reporting. People did know who had the best potato salad, though. Useful for the next community pot luck.
She took pride in being a reporter and getting it all right as best she could. Never had a complaint that she got something wrong.
“Notwithstanding, approximately 0% of the world’s broadcasters are honest and balanced.”
True. Time was, however, that they kept their bias mostly on the editorial page and not in the news reporting which at least attempted to appear (if not actually be) honest and balanced. Nowadays, no such attempt is even being made.
The BBC went partisan on climate some years before. In 2004 they stopped using their top naturalist broadcaster David Bellamy because he would not toe the line and switched to the less qualified but more pliable David Attenborough, who has amply rewarded their confidence in him.
He has been caught out using zoo animals while pretending they are in the wild and attributing the suicide of walruses to “climate change” while knowing that they were actually fleeing polar bears.
The BBC’s headline today “Climate change: Europe’s extreme rains made more likely by humans” By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
Which is probably true but not because of Climate change.
Once upon a time, it was forbidden to listen to BBC, that was during WWII in Germany.
There their broadcast was worth to listen.
Later they had good music in the late sixties and early seventies. That’s what I know about BBC.
For the rest, to compare with our German gouvernement radio and tv stations.
Not worth to listen / look to.
The BBC deserves the nickname of Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation
We have the corollary in Canada: the CBC – state funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which I refer to as the Communist Broadcasting Corporation. Like the BBC they tell maybe 50% of the news and it is all badly slanted. Bias is readily apparent and the rest is lying by omission.
I don’t know what the cause is, but I have seen similar complaints about the ABC , the Australian public broadcaster, and experienced PBS and NPR, the US public broadcasters. Sucking up to the left wing of the more leftist national party seems to be an instinct.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
The Black Knight becomes a comedian!
By the gods. I don’t often post on here, Griff, but your comment has me spitting nails.
The number of times I have shouted at the Radio / TV, when the BBC “report” on climate for their sheer bias and unbalanced reporting, far exceeds the number of times I have walked into the kitchen and wondered why I’m there – say no more.
Yes. nonsense ….the griffter is one of he world’s most balanced and honest commentators. It is just reality doesn’t conform to his expectations, that’s all. The ghriffter is the Lord Haw Haw of our time.
Surely that’s Comrade Haw-Haw?
To be fair to the deluded fool, to a Guardian worshipper the BBC would appear as a paragon of virtue.
good point.
Please don’t feed (respond) to the troll until he replies to a simple question about which era in history he would prefer to live in. All you are doing is encouraging more of his drive-by tactics. Ignore him until we get an answer.
Griff, which era would you prefer to live in? 1800’s, 1900’s, or 2000’s, with, according to you, dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2. Which is it, Griff?
Sooooo …. where in that Radio 4 series of anti-fossil fuel industry / anti-skeptic climate scientists did they give objective, balanced, and honest presentation time to Dr Willie Soon? How much of what’s in the following link actually made it into any of those “How They Made Us Doubt Everything” podcast reports?
WUWT Guest Essay: “BBC Asks Dr. Willie Soon to Respond to Climate Conspiracy Claims“
Lying by omission does not an honest broadcaster make.
I love the way socialists just assume that whatever they believe is the truth.
No griff, it USED TO BE one of the world’s most balanced and honest broadcasters.
50 years ago.
Possibly even 35 years ago.
RIP truth in broadcasting.
You left out the sarcasm font, right? What, you were serious?
Please provide evidence, otherwise this is just your opinion.
If the BBC is “one of the world’s most balanced and honest broadcasters.” 🤣🤣🤣
Where does that put CNN in your opinion griff?
griff: “Nonsense. The BBC is one of the world’s most balanced and honest broadcasters.”
J Jonah Jameson says it all:
Jonah Jameson – You Serious ? Spiderman – YouTube
Is that why they have a preference for employing pro-Labour activists?
https://order-order.com/2021/07/12/appointment-of-culture-warrior-to-head-bbc-news-incompatible-with-impartial-bbc/
https://order-order.com/2021/08/23/bbc-dodges-questions-on-jess-brammar-hiring-process/
And what about the way the BBC hides the left-wing activities of the supposedly ‘neutral’ people they interview? Here’s a whole list of articles revealing the bias of BBC presenters.
https://order-order.com/tag/bbc-bias/
The latest Ofcom research has seen BBC News fall to the lowest-ranked TV news offering in the country, below Sky, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. Just 58% of viewers now rate the corporation’s TV news offering as impartial, with Ofcom warning that the viewer-broadcaster relationship could be “jeopardised” if this current state of affairs continues.
I beg to differ.
It would be George Orwell who would be impressed.
Just about everything he warned us about the British establishment, and particularly the BBC has turned out to be true.
My history teacher taught us, “the only reason the UK has never managed to turn into a fully authoritarian (Orwell-Newspeak) like state is because of the totally inept incompetency of the bureaucracy.
The BBC being a bureaucratic hydra equipped with computers and unlimitd funding escapes from the “normal” rules on this one.
I gave up watching or listening to any “factual” programs from the BBC years ago because of the bias shown in them. Their news broadcasts are particularly bad. I am trying to keep my blood pressure down these days. Oddly enough, I do read the Guardian (which is similar to the BBC on many topics) on a regular basis but this is partly for amusement purposes and partly to keep tabs on what the loonies are thinking.
What evidence?
“What evidence?”
This is the bit you should be complaining about.
Anything that is different from yesterday, is proof that CO2 is ruining the world.
“What evidence” is the question.
There’s no evidence that CO2 is going to cause the Earth’s weather to be more extreme/catastrophic.
Saying so is not a conspiracy.
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” according to what Slick Willie, born Mr. Blythe III, testified to an American grand jury 23 years ago while the 42nd USA president.
If you were going to reject a complaint you should be able to do it easily by stating simple facts. The more you twist and turn and try and extract little nuggets of facts the more your rejection is seen for what it really is – fake news.
The UK’s national broadcaster has become little more than a propaganda outfit over the past 20 years. Defund the BBC!
Back around 2008 when I first started seeing all the coordinated media spin, I discovered a web page that had been maintained by a media outfit that had the 35 talking points of the day on AGW. It was rather amusing…
Today in the world of TOR (encrypted onion router) I am sure they are just better at keeping their collusion hidden…
The BBC plus the rest of media, academia, and politicians around the world are on the same page with instant connectivity hidden in one of the layers of the web. It is called the dark web for a reason.
Did you ever wonder how hundreds of articles, news letters, blogs ect referencing a to be released Harvard paper appear overnight.
The real conspiracy here is the one between all the News Media of the Western world and leftwing billionaires to promote a Human-caused Climate Change narrative for which there is no evidence.
The Media/Elites conspirators lie and claim the science of CO2 is settled. If it were settled, the alarmists wouldn’t be having so much trouble selling this scam.
Much ado about nothing. The real issue are claims repeatedly made by all media that sceptical scientists are being paid by the fossil fuel industry, which by implication suggests their research should be disregarded.
It is ironical that in the future, the oil industry ideas of the late eighties will be shown to have been true, and their current position false. Unfortunately, none of us will live long enough to enjoy that moment.
I hope your wrong Vincent but at my age your probably right.
Ask the regulator to deregister them
Embarrass the government to defund them
That will solve them
I tried to complain about a BBC piece which claimed that tennis is “too white”: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/57163219
I wrote: “Overt and Shameless Racism by BBC Sport
It is claimed that English tennis is “too white”.
This is racism, pure and simple. I challenge any of the BBC wokerati to substitute any other colour for the w-word and see how, in your parlance, this “feels”.
The BBC must stop treating skin colour, rather than the content of people’s character, as a mark of virtue or vice. It must discipline racists such as the author of this article. The claim that tennis is “too white” would be equally noxious if it were directed against any other racial group, and the hierarchy which gave airtime to this wicked slur are equally guilty of this act of racial hatred as its benighted author.”
My complaint was rejected.
Imagine the uproar if FOX news made a statement that the NBA was “too black” or that the NFL was over representing minorities based on the percentage of whites in American demographics. I would love to hear the ranting racsit rationale spewing forth by the BBC as they tremble in anger attacking FOX accusing them of spreading white supremacist racsit propaganda
It is also notable that anyone watching UK television commercial channels would conclude from advertisements that the majority of British families comprised of a white woman with an Afro-Carribean partner, or two Afro-Carribean partners.
Yes, that happens here in the United States, too.
I think the leftwing advertising agencies are presenting a world to us the way they want it to look, not the way it actually is. They are deliberately distorting reality for political/woke reasons.
We get leftwing propaganda from all directions nowadays. Some of it subtle, some of it not.
And most people are gay and/or trans
Including cartoon characters aimed at 6 year olds.
In the UK ethnic minorities are already over-represented in advertsing, promotional literature and on the BBC. For example, if a quiz programme has four contestants at least one has to be from the ethnic minorities. A while ago I refused to participate in a government survey as the leaflet I received about it was full of pictures of women and people from ethnic minorities. Not a white person in sight.
“Not a white person in sight.”
I think that’s the idea. A lot of these radical lefties would just like to erase the white race altogether. They were taught in school that the white race is the source of all evil in the world.
What’s ironic is a lot of these radical lefties are white people. They have been taught to hate themselves.
According to Critical Race Theory, all whites are racist oppressors and that’s all they will ever be.
On the other hand, leftists used to tell us that anyone who judged another based on just their skin color was a racist.
We are definitely seeing anti-white racism from the left. That’s all it is. It’s meant to divide us up into groups and then pit us against each other. It’s goal is to destroy our society and take away our personal freedoms.
I have to wonder what kind of world this would be if we could somehow instantly erase all artistic and scientific contributions from “white people”.
I think it was Samuel L Jackson who when asked about racism, said that the only way to combat racism was to stop talking about racism.
The interviewer was more than a bit flummoxed, because I’m sure most of his questions were going to be about racism.
Mike Wallace interviewing Morgan Freeman, who had just called Black History Month “ridiculous” …
Freeman elaborated: Black history is American History, and so shouldn’t be delegated to a single month where we pay attention to it. Wallace pushed back: how’re we supposed to end racism without it? Freeman responded, “Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, ‘I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.’ Hear what I’m saying?”
Wallace looked like a deer in the headlights … utterly shocked.
When my daughter was in school, for ethnicity I checked “other” and wrote in “American”.
At a meeting once, I was asked about it. You can imagine the look of shock when I said “I don’t believe in separating people by race”
Good for you; I agree. I was just thinking about it … and, d’you know what? One could make a very good case for considering ‘American‘ to be an ethnicity.
All complaints to the BBC are rejected.
BBC 1: deniers nil…!
Does this mean you think that the BBC presenters reflect the demographics of the UK as well as presenting News and Science accurately?
Be kind, it took him all day to think that one up.
Oh do be serious Griffy – how can catching the BBC in a blatant lie (or several) be a victory for them? This will have to go to Ofcom for a result. This should be weighed along with Attenborough’s lies, the lying and misinformation pushed out by the laughingly named ‘news’ and the programmes concentrating on a single lie or piece of misinformation. The whole BBC is riddled with bias and a sense of privilege (witness their behaviour with the Savile case) – it needs defunding immediately.
Griff,
The BBC are scum. They covered up the fact that a bunch of their employees were filthy nonces, one of whom (Saville) was described as the UK’s most prolific child abuser.
If the BBC hadn’t been covering it up for decades, Savile and his filthy cronies would have been in jail. Instead, Savile died peacefully in his bed.
Johnny Rotten tried to tell them about Savile in a radio interview, and they edited it out and banned Rotten.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/john-lydon-5-1223084
As I say, the BBC are scum.
As he says…
They covered it up. They are culpable.
It’s not even half-time, Griff, mate
Did you see that on the BBC?
Motes and beams…the climate hysterics can collude to falsify, mislead, lie and publish thoroughly tampered with “science” and know that the BBC will egg them on and lead and bleed all over their fictions in its coverage with ever more absurd and dishonest fear mongering to keep children of all ages frightened.
Just as Calamity Joe and to a lesser extent Bonkers Boris get a free pass on their catastrophic green destruction of our economies.
It is not even worth the postage stamp to complain to the BBC with its insane coverage of weather and climate, bereft of any knowledge or even awareness of Earth history. What they fail to understand is how deeply despised they have made themselves. And apart from the luvvies no one will want to help them when eventually someone finally shines some light down the drains.
It has become a biased and woke echo chamber for the London middle class and metropolitan elites. Time for change.
Moderately Cross
Absolutely correct.
Hardly a sentence in the BBC’s reply fails to put forward the propositions that:-
A) Energy companies must be prevented from defending themselves, their shareholders, their employees and their customers from attack, be those attacks never so malicious and incompetent.
B) Energy Companies are thus Conspirators, pure and simple.
C) The most exaggerated Glowbull Warming claims are, without exception, undisputedly genuine, scientific and accurate.
D) The BBC is thus a true champion for “The Science” and for Planet Earth.
Unfortunately, all this is absolutely the reverse of the facts.
The BBC’s archives should be taken over and preserved for posterity and made available for viewing / listening on a subscription basis.
The editorial, ‘news’, and especially the “Environ mental” and “Scientific” departments and the “Complaints” handlers should be sacked immediately and prevented from ever again defrauding the British public.
“Calamity Joe”
Good description! God help us!
After the past few days of the disaster in Afghanistan, his new name is “Joke Biden.” His cohort is Kackling Kamala.
Biden *and* Harris are getting ready to make a public speech here in about 25 minutes (1pm EST).
They won’t take this advice, but here is how Joe and Kamala can salvage at least one of their political careers:
Kamala Harris should get up there and become the defender of Afghanistan women, and she should announce that she and Joe have authorized the U.S. military to go out into Kabul and retrieve all American citizens and all those Afghans who helped the U.S. and are in danger because of it.
Both the British and the French have already sent their milltary forces into areas where they can retrieve their citizens. Biden is restricting American troops to the Kabul airport. Kamala needs to change that, and she might still have a political future. Otherwise, no.
It must be very difficult for those American troops standing inside the fence hearing the pleas of the people outside, and there is nothing they can do to help, because Biden won’t let them help. I think Biden fears American casualties, and is doing everything he can to avoid them, which puts everyone at risk, not just American troops. The man is a fool.
They won’t take this advice, but they should.
Word is the Biden Whitehouse can’t understand the reaction to the aftermath of Biden’s terrible decision in Afghanistan.
If that’s true, then these Biden administration people truly are living in an alternate reality. Out to Lunch.
Biden has stated that there has been no loss to American credibility due to his handling of Afghanistan.
Biden also said there are no Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, even though it’s obvious there are. Even the UN detailed their presence there a few weeks ago.
Biden is either blatantly lying or is completely disconnected from reality. I think it’s a little of both.
What a fiasco he has created in Afghanistan!
I think the American people are going to have to impeach Biden just to show the world that we don’t agree with his stupidity.
What is ‘American credibility’? I have no idea what that means. The last vestiges of that evaporated when Trump entered the Whitehouse, it was finally made clear to anyone outside the US who had any doubt exactly what ‘credibility’ the US has.
Err…. don’t you mean Trumps terrible decision in Afghanistan? After all, it was Trump who decided to pull the US out, and you were OK with that. Biden carried it though, so all Trump supporters should be happy!
Everything that has happened under Biden would also, inevitably have happened under Trump, but you wouldn’t all be whining about – you’d be applauding him. Shameless, craven, toadying lickspittle hypocrites , every last one of you.
Why was it inevitable that the pullout would have been equally poorly executed under Trump’s watch?
Frankly, I think it’s a little unfair that Biden gets the blame for this; I very much doubt that POTUS is involved in the military logistics of withdrawals. But if this had happened under Trump there’d be howls for (yet another) impeachment.
Biden wants us to believe that the what he did in Afghanistan is the best anyone could do under the circumstances. It’s a self-serving lie.
Just about anyone could have done a better job in Afghanistan.
Trump said in his speech on Saturday that he told a five-year-old boy about the circumstances in Afghanistan, specifically about pulling the military out before saving the civilians, and even the boy wouldn’t have done what Biden did. The boy said we should have saved the civilians first, before pulling out the American troops.
That’s how stupid Biden is.
You sound like you are working for the Biden administration. Those are some of the same lies Biden is saying.
I, personally, don’t support a complete pullout of Afghanistan whether it is Trump or Biden doing it.
I believe, although I don’t know for sure, since I don’t have all the details of the deal Trump made, but I think Trump had the intention of keeping some people in Afghanistan, and he had the intention of not allowing the Taliban to take over Afghanistan, and he had NATO allies that wanted to keep their 7,000 troops in Afghanistan, so we will have to wait for the official investigation to find out if Trump had a terrible plan like Biden. I highly doubt it.
Under Trump’s plan, the Taliban had to meet certain goals for the deal to continue. Biden just pulled up stakes and left with the U.S. military, while leaving all the Americans and Afghan helpers to fend for themselves. I don’t think Trump would have even considered such a thing.
Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. But we usually require evidence around here, so let’s wait for some evidence from an investigation before we go charging Trump with offenses.
I have had a number of dealings with the BBC in the past. They don’t apologise, they word-spin to make it sound like they have. Over the past few years, their racism and their superiority complex have gotten bigger……they are racist against whites, they think and assume they are superior to all other news outlets, they regard Americans as thick and are the UK’s biggest source of climate mis-information. You have done very well to get this far!! There is a movement in the UK to have the BBC’s licence fee removed and this is just another example of why the BBC need to no longer exsist in their current form.
The real tragedy is the fact that one of the godfathers of CAGW, Hansen, attempting to explain why the Pause happened, came to a conclusion that it was the result of massive increases in Chinese emissions, from the 80’s onwards, of particulate carbon and sulphates from massively increasing coal fired power stations’ capacity as needed to power their rapidly industries. He wrote a paper explaining his findings, stating such emissions were reducing solar energy reaching the Earth. This was a know fact from the the 70’s onwards, and possibly earlier. The effect of such emissions was known as Solar Gloom.
What he apparently didn’t realise is that, following increases in smogs by the 1950’s and the later acid rain events, the developed western world had instigated programmes of Clean Air Acts, massively reducing such emissions and thus avoiding smogs and other poor air qualities incidents.
What follows is that this West’s reduction of particulate carbon and sulphate emissions increased global temperatures far more than any increases in man-made CO2 emissions, thus further exposing the flaws in CAGW theories and forecasts.
The BBC man wrote:
“In my opinion, the description provided by the programme-makers didn’t make that clear and I can see how some listeners might have assumed the advert was played on every station across the United States which broadcast Mr Limbaugh’s show. However, in order for me to consider this lack of clarity to amount to a serious breach of the BBC’s editorial standards, it would be necessary for the audience to have been left with a seriously misleading impression. On balance, I don’t think that was the case. ”
This seems to be a basic method used by the BBC. Some years ago I complained to the BBC about a statement by one of their presenters that the terms ‘paedophile’ and ‘Catholic priest’ were almost synonymous. Their final defence for the statement was that the average listener would not have been misled. So it’s no use complaining that what they have said is wrong; they’ll just say it doesn’t matter as nobody that matters was misled.
“So it’s no use complaining that what they have said is wrong; they’ll just say it doesn’t matter as nobody that matters was misled.”
That’s pretty much what they said above, wasn’t it.
The bottom line is the science is not settled, so skeptics, including those in oil companies, have a right to question the narrative.
I look forward to reading Russel’s response – seems to me the brilliant BBC make a perfectly reasonable and valid defence.
Of course it is a matter of historical record that fossil fuel companies did fund fake grassroot (astroturf) and other groups who spread disinformation and doubt about the state of the science, often using tactics developed by the tobacco industry, and in my opinion, our climate would be in a better state now if they had been less successful.
What color is the sky there on your planet?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
LOL! Really? Your response is a link to the Groan?
Ba-hahahahahahahaha!
Utterly predictable. Are you unwilling or unable to counter the facts presented?
“The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company’s official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled “junk science”. The findings they welcome are labelled “sound science”.
Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens’ organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens’ organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world.”
To do what? The thing that’s been absent at Kert Davies’ Greenpeace-created-and-run ExxonSecrets website is any smoking gun evidence showing the corporate-mandated directives that skeptic climate scientists and associated skeptic think tanks operated under. Be a hero, John, put your money where your mouth is — show us the evidence that skeptic scientists held the right positions but were subsequently corrupted by industry money to change positions and spread lies because of that money corruption.
Oh please. Is there a memo saying ‘here’s a big cheque, now go and publish some lies about climate science’? Well, actually, no.
But if I give money to say, Greenpeace, I have a pretty good idea how it will get spent. Similarly, when Exxon funded the Heartland Institute (you remember, those charming people who erected a series of billboards helpfully reminding us that the Unabomber was a believer in Global Warming) they knew what they were supporting. Ditto the AEI, the Cato etc. Here’s a selective list of recipients of Exxon monies and their position statements …
Acton Institute for the Study of Religious Liberty ($155,000)
Limiting CO2 is “a misguided attempt to solve a problem that may not even exist.“
American Council for Capital Formation ($250,000)
“Science questions must be addressed before the United States and its allies embark on a path as nonproductive as that of the Kyoto Protocol.”
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy ($427,500)
“Answering questions about global warming takes more than a few thermometers, an agenda and a press release.“
Capital Research Center ($115,000)
“Scientists disagree about climate change, but you wouldn’t know that from the [Kyoto] treaty. It is based on a theory that man-made carbon dioxide, or CO2, gas emissions caused by industrial activities have created the so-called ‘global warming’ effect.”
Centre for the New Europe ($40,000)
“Not only is the scientific basis of global warming increasingly uncertain, but Kyoto will also ultimately prove to be an economic disaster for Europe—and the developing world,”
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise ($40,000)
Described the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment “as phony as a three-dollar bill.“
You get the idea. Lots more here
So in what passes for your mind, Heartland is about one thing and one thing only, climate denial?
I also love your declaring that any group that has ever disagreed with your religious convictions is also about climate denial and only climate denial.
I guess when one has a simple mind, one is forced to reduce the complexity of the real world down to something you can actually understand.
Question, does being a socialist rot ones brain, or do only those with rotted brains become socialists?
Gosh yes, you’re right. Maybe Heartland put the Exxon money towards an afternoon tea dance for employees, rather than say a conference or a report. I never thought of that.
I know several people concerned about AGW. None is a socialist and nor am I.
John – good to see you are at least admitting that, after about 30 years of enviros accusing Big Coal & Oil execs of paying skeptic climate scientists to lie doesn’t have a scintilla of physical evidence to back up the accusation, only mere guilt-by-association. Indulge this WUWT reading audience: if I succeeded in smearing your reputation by widely spreading a vague accusation about your tacit approval of child pornography while the best evidence I had for it is that you worked for guys who trafficked in that, you’d be livid about the accusation, would you not? Meanwhile, one of the top-rank former guys at the IPCC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, was commissioned to write a paper by Greenpeace while he was in the IPCC, so by your own definition, that transaction renders the IPCC to be totally corrupt, yes? Do you also dispute that Greenpeace receives corporate donations from left-leaning CEOs far in excess of what you donate to them? Do commercial news outlets receive money from corporate giants who “have a pretty good idea how it will get spent” and thus are untrustworthy by your own definition? Or in those cases, is the outcome of the reports based on their own merits regardless of how they are funded? And did you not think your defense response all the way through, there?
One more thing — the skeptic climate scientists, whose work was subsequently spread by think tanks, held their positions on the science before they ever received a dime of corporate donations. The definition of corruption is that a person switches views under the influence of cash payments. When you hurl the “corruption” accusation, you are then obligated to prove the corruption occurred, with actual evidence of the ‘before’ and ‘after’ situations. Are you literally not aware that when you provide nothing more than guilt-by-association, you are ‘all show and no go’ on the accusation?
Wow, every statement is a clear TRUTH. And you say these people had to be PAID BY BIG OIL to just speak facts? Really??
Only a true believer accepts the 97% consensus and the hookie stick and etcetera.
When your livelihood and your degree depends on parroting the party line, that is what a liberal will do. That is the only basis of the CAGW scare. And NO SCIENCE contradicts the dogma because NO FUNDS are distributed in grants for anyone who challenges the dogma.
The mere fact that every claim in that document has been refuted just doesn’t matter to you, does it?
Oh my God, they gave some money to George Mason University’s Law and Economics Centre as well? How could they do that?
The senators letter is a joke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy#Funding_of_climate_change_denial
Use of the term “denial” can only apply to religious beliefs.
The fact the leftist controlled wiki uses the term “denial” verifies this leftist slant and control.
You need to get out of your sheltered surroundings, and coming to WUWT is a start, but on the science and the statistical inaccuracies of MULTIPLE published and referenced “peer reviewed studies” that your religion is based on, go to Climate Audit and start from the beginning. You might learn something.
And while you are at it, read this recent article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/19/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/
And then go to McIntyre and McKitrick’s published papers.
One group of socialists supports the lies of another group of socialists.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Again with the enslavement to Kert Davies and his ClimateFiles trash, John? Your “evidence” of illicitly industry-funded disinformation campaigns is nothing more than a letter of opinion from a pair of U.S. Senators claiming the campaigns were “well-documented.” As I proved at my GelbspanFiles blog, no they were not. Don’t show us opinion about the accusation or direct us to entire websites, organizations, books, or video presentations, SHOW US THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE — full context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, etc — proving skeptic scientists were paid to fabricate demonstratively false science papers, reports, assessments or viewpoints. What I’ve long demonstrated at my blog, and again in this joust with the BBC, is that the best ‘evidence’ your side has ever had over the last three decades is two sets of worthless ‘leaked memos’ that were never implemented in any form.
Make no mistake, Russell, if there was even a scintilla of ACTUAL EVIDENCE, this would have been the top news item every day for a month. By now it would have been the subject of six ‘docu-drama’ series, five books, four top of the pops songs, three huge poster campaigns, a couple of conferences featuring Boris and Prince Chuckles dancing the tango and a ballet.
There is solid evidence (not least on your website) that Kert Davies, Naomi Oreskes, the DAs of many US Democrat cities are amongst the most egregious and venal fraudsters in the West.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for any of this to be mentioned by the BBC.
Like most socialists, John rates truth and falsehood solely on whether it advances his agenda.
“Your “evidence” of illicitly industry-funded disinformation campaigns is nothing more than a letter of opinion”
So the Senators were lying? Whatever, you are arguing a point I never made. The fossil fuel companies never mounted any illicit campaign, they quite legally funded think tanks and astroturf groups who they knew would spread misinformation and create doubt. They also formed Global Cimate Coalition – an industry group with the aim of resisting any restrictions on fossil fuel exploitation largely by manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus, and Exxon put out their own PR material with the same aim. This is all in the public domain, there is nothing illicit about companies lobbying for their own interests.
The evidence is in plain sight in the form of (for example) Exxon’s own accounts and it’s corporate giving reports. This 2007 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists uses public and internal documents to record how Exxon distributed $16 million to 43 different think tanks and lobby groups (Appendix B).
According to the executive summary…
“The report documents that, despite the scientific consensus about the fundamental understanding that global warming is caused by carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions, ExxonMobil has funneled about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and
advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue. Many of these organizations have an overlapping—sometimes identical—
collection of spokespeople serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors. By publishing and republishing the non-peer-reviewed works of
a small group of scientific spokespeople, ExxonMobil-funded organizations have propped up and amplified work that has been discredited
by reputable climate scientists.”
A year earlier, the Royal Society wrote to Exxon expressing concern about its position on the science and the letter includes this
“I have carried out an ad hoc survey on the websites of organisations that are listed in the ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report for ‘public information and policy research’, which is published on your website. Of those organisations whose websites feature information about climate change, I found that 25 offered views that are consistent with the scientific literature However, some 39 organisations were featuring information on their websites that misrepresented the science of climate change, by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change, or by overstating the amount and significance of uncertainty in knowledge, or by conveying a misleading impression of the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change My analysis indicates that ExxonMobil last year provided more than 52.9 million to organisations in the United States which misinformed the public about climate change through their websites.”
The irony here is that up intil the late 1980s Exxon had been a champion of atmospheric research, Exxon scientists built their own climate models and published over 40 peer-reviewed climate science papers. The company even converted a tanker into an oceanic CO2 research vessel and they built projected sea level rise into their infrastructure planning. A 1982 internal memo correctly summarised the science
“The consensus is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [equal to 5.4 ± 1.7°F]…There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.”
And the earliest use of the word ‘catastrophic’ in relation to climate change that I’m aware of was also in an Exxon memo…
“It is distinctly possible that the CPD scenario “[the projected warming trend after 2030] “will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth’s population).”
None of this is remotely controversial, Exxon’s sponsoring of climate obfustication has its own wiki entry, widespread press coverage and there’s even a book on the topic.
Sources
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models/
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2006/8257.pdf
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Exxon-Road-Taken-Kindle-Single-ebook/dp/B017AMFLF4
What part of the words “nothing more than a letter of opinion” did you not understand? You, sir, are arguing a point I never made. The Senators made a claim about widespread documentation of the ‘disinformation’ efforts — an opinion devoid of evidence to back it up. Meanwhile, you inadvertently reinforce my point that the false accusation is not widely documented, it’s little more than regurgitations of the same old accusation that’s enslaved to just two sets of worthless ‘leaked industry memos,’ which is the entire thrust of my complaint against the BBC. The 2007 UCS “Smoke & Mirrors” report you cite dutifully regurgitated the accusation about the API / Global Climate Coalition “victory will be achieved” non-implemented memo set originally from Greenpeace (specifically Kert Davies), and further cited Ross Gelbspan on other accusation points, the man who made a second career for himself by regurgitating the accusation that’s enslaved to never implemented “reposition global warming” set. UCS’ “Deception Dossiers” later regurgitated both sets in a manner that seemed to indicate it was something new, but, as I pointed out right here at WUWT in 2015, all they did was point a giant arrow to how faulty the source for the “reposition” set was. Don’t tell me my piece is mere opinion unsubstantiated by facts, show us all where my details are wrong.
Regarding the whole “Exxon knew” spiel, prove it. A person doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist or even a climatologist to dive into the Exxon docs collection and spot ones like this where Exxon displayed plenty of doubt about climate models and the sheer uncertainty of CAGW. Remember the ’77-’78 Black Report which supposedly proves how Exxon knew the Arctic would be melting that the global warming lawsuits use as ‘evidence’ today? How’s that working out for ya? Back then, Exxon what handed an alarmist prediction and thus didn’t have the first accurate clue of what was going to happen 50 years into the future.
“The Senators made a claim about widespread documentation of the ‘disinformation’ efforts — an opinion devoid of evidence to back it up. “
That is quite simply not the case. You are just ignoring the copious documentation provided by the Royal Society, UCS, Greenpeace and others, derived from Exxon’s own accounts and corporate giving reports that they funded organisations dedicated to disseminating disinformation, even as their own scientists were warning about the possibly catastrophic consequences of fossil fuel combustion.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models/
For them to be “dedicated to disseminating disinformation”, they’d have to be knowingly publishing falsehoods.
Given that CAGW is still a far-off future event, doubting it will happen can’t be labelled “disinformation” – it hasn’t happened yet, and, by all present trends, won’t.
Prove it. So far, the only thing we’ve ever seen out of the RS and UCS (ya left out Desmogblog) is evidence that corporations donated to organizations. Period. End of Sentence. Prove the information disseminated was false, and that both parties – the scientists and the industry execs – knew it was false. You imply corruption happened but don’t point us to anything proving corruption. Meanwhile, the place & core people that I term “Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action” claim two sets of ‘leaked memos’ prove this accusation to be true, and I point six ways to Sunday to how both memo sets were never implemented and thus cannot serve as evidence for any ‘disinformation campaigns’ allegations that are pushed by nearly all of the 25 current AGW lawsuits and this BBC podcast report that’s the main topic here. What part of ‘stand and deliver’ regarding actual evidence of industry-orchestrated corruption do you not understand?
If he could “stand and deliver” he would. He can’t so he won’t.
The “John Phillips” of the world can’t be faulted when they are unable to stand & deliver on evidence proving skeptic climate scientists were paid to lie. He and true believers like him are enslaved to faulty sources for their regurgitations of the accusation. However, my whole point is that this needs to be taken upward to the highest levels by all of us, including John: why is it, after all these years, that top rank people such as the BBC, and those running the majority of the 25 U.S. “Exxon Knew”-style AGW lawsuits, and people such as the Guardian’s George Monbiot, Naomi Oreskes, Ross Gelbspan, Greenpeace (Greenpeace/Gelbspan redux), Desmogblog, and Al Gore cannot stand & deliver on their accusation with anything better than two sets of worthless, never-implemented (and unsolicited, in the case of the “reposition global warming” set) ‘leaked memos’?
You’ve got the direction of causality wrong. The oil majors fund dissident scientists because their research shows the alarmist narrative to be wrong; they’re not producing this research because they’re being paid.
It really is amazing how desperately socialists cling to their disproven lies.
The BBC must really admire Goebbels. They sure rely on his tactics a lot.
AFAIK the BBC went ‘nap’ with their pension fund on man-made global warming-related investments. If it turns out not to be the case, they are up the proverbial. However if they buy time to unwind these investments they might get away with it. Therefore I believe they have a collective financial motive to keep this AGW scam spinning for a bit longer until they can dump their investments.
Mind you, it seems the wheels are now falling off this AGW wheeze, and COP 26 is going to be interesting. I have already seen signs in the MSM that people are toning down the rhetoric, and that Boris is testing the waters to see if he can get away with switching the vanue from Glasgow to Zoom in order to save carbon, covid infections and such other excuses he can think up …
Using that same logic, the Climate Catastrophists have suggested that killing (AKA eliminating)
denialistsclimate realists should become mandated. They should be tried for collusion to commit attempted mass murder and mass false imprisonmentJust so you know, if you try to take a complaint to Ofcom, it just goes straight back to the B’BS’C. Ofcom in reality does nothing.
Ofcom are political appointees. They will say and do whatever the politicians tell them to.
The latest tactic of the Clime Syndicate is to go back to the well, pick up the old “think of the children” and re-brand it to something called the “Children’s Climate Risk Index” (CCRI), thus posing this completely imaginary thing they pulled out of their arse as being something they can actually measure. You really can’t make this stuff up. And Scoldilocks has, naturally glommed onto it in a heartbeat, screaming about it on the failed NYT’s.
You know, during the 1960’s and 1970’s, the Earth cooled so much that many scientists were thinking the Earth was headed into another Ice Age.
I wonder what the position of the Oil Companies and their scientist was with regard to Human-caused Global Cooling, as it was referred to during that time?
Did the oil company scientists think Global Cooling was wrong because of CO2? Or did they agree with the propostion, at the time? Did their views change with the times? Did they have any position at all on global cooling?
Scissor replied to me above near the top that “Notwithstanding, approximately 0% of the world’s broadcasters are honest and balanced.”
To which I replied: The media are all part of “Covering Climate Now”
Covering Climate Now say on their website:
CCNow collaborates with journalists and newsrooms to produce more informed and urgent climate stories, to make climate a part of every beat in the newsroom — from politics and weather to business and culture — and to drive a public conversation that creates an engaged public.
…
CCNow’s 460-plus partners include some of the biggest names in news, and some of the smallest, because this story needs everyone. In addition to three of the world’s biggest news agencies — Reuters, Bloomberg, and Agence France Presse — each of which provides content to thousands of other newsrooms, our partners include CBS News, NBC and MSNBC News, Noticias Telemundo, PBS NewsHour, Univision, Al Jazeera; most of the biggest public radio stations in the US; many flagship newspapers and TV networks in the Americas, Europe, and Asia; and dozens of leading magazines and journals, including Nature, Scientific American, Rolling Stone, HuffPost, Teen Vogue, and Mother Jones.”
https://coveringclimatenow.org/about/
Make a note of those names… including Nature
I don’t suppose it would her to point out how many times the Exxon Knew lawsuits have lost in the US Court system?
When the BBC decided that putting a sceptic voice in a debate was “unfair balance” they crossed a line.
They were then committed to one side of a contentious political debate: Do we prioritise mitigating against climate change regardless of costs?
By saying “Yes” to that question they were able to justify ending debate. But they were then stuck on that extreme view.
(Note: Deciding to mitigate against climate change is not extreme but deciding that any alternatives mustn’t even be considered is very extreme).
So now they have no credibility left, except with those who agree with that extreme view. But that number will always fall so long as people do hear any alternative views.
Thus the BBC is trapped trying to suppress information as a matter of survival.
It will fail.
I’ll believe in the BBC’s impartiality when it hosts a public debate between Greta Thunberg and Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, USA.
#HowDareYou.
Greta has a better scowl I bet.
So according to the BBC, fossil fuel companies made us doubt everything and repositioned global warming as a theory by drawing up some plans and then not executing them. Oh, but there was that trial in three US cities with combined population of less than 250,000, of which God knows how many saw, read or heard the material. And that made us, all over the world, doubt everything.
Madness.
That the climate changes has never been in doubt.
That CO2, is the dominant player in climate change has always been a theory.
A theory that runs completely contrary to all known facts.
An important caveat: Not theory, but conjecture.
A theory is a (extensively) tested and so far successful hypothesis,
A hypothesis is a testable statement of cause and effect,
A conjecture is a speculation about cause and effect.
I don’t see anything wrong with campaigns against 1991 untested hypotheses presented as factual science that is designed to tip civilization on its ear and hand over sovereignty to socialist bureaucrats at the UN and EU.
I think, had the contemplated campaigns included information included in my first paragraph, even the BBC would be forced to counter with the “science” for everyone to see – something that we have yet to see and never will see.
I like the tobacco analogy. After all, no matter how the tobacco conspirators twisted and turned, the truth actually came out (maybe secondhand smoke excepted). With the sinistral ID*ology – promoted fossil fuel global warming, the truth is trickling out no matter that 100,000 Catastrophic AGW asterisked scientists are in a panic plugging holes in the dike.
Models, ECS, have been discredited and James Hansen, Father of Global Warming, inventor of wholesale adjustments to T data sets (and formerly head of NASA’s GISS) and his replacement, Gavin Schmidt now see a 30yr cooling as plausible after admitting models do run a way too hot. These are the twists and turns. The truth about Clime Syndicate conspirors is next.
I’m mystified… while I applaud anyone filing a complaint against the BBC, it’s really a weird complaint, because nowhere does it state the bald-face truth: BBC starts with an invalid assumption, that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact, and no-one dare speak against it. The only place to actually find CAGW is in computer
gamesprograms that have been known for many years to be not-fit-for-purpose. Otherwise, it doesn’t exist, and therefore pointing out that it’s only conjecture (see, in the hierarchy of science, first there’s a hypothesis, if enough data gathers to support the hypothesis it is eventually dubbed a Theory, but all Theories are susceptible to better data or better hypotheses, that can send said Theory into the dustbin of history. Did anyone learn about phlogistan in either your chemistry or your physics classes? But CAGW hasn’t even garnered enough data to be labeled a “hypothesis”!) is neither sinister nor necessarily a conspiracy! BBC and all Warmunists, get over yourselves already!We’ve read and noted your points but don’t consider they suggest evidence of a possible breach of standards. Opinions vary widely about our output, but this doesn’t always mean we’ve breached our standards or public service obligations. For this reason we regret we don’t have more to add to our previous correspondence and won’t respond further or address more questions or points.
If you’re not happy with our decision, you can contact the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) within 20 working days of this reply. You’ll need to explain why you think there is a potential breach of standards, or if the issue is significant and should still be investigated.
Full details of how we handle complaints are available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/.
I think this shows the BBC has not altered on jot from the institutional corruption in the area of promoting climate change fake news to the point of completer brainwashing.