Richard Black takes the subject of Climate Change as far away from the actual science as possible, by apparently giving in to resentment over his treatment at the hands of Joseph Romm :-
“‘Warmist’ attack smacks of ‘sceptical’ intolerance : Richard Black | 16:42 UK time, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 : It seems that something new, and not altogether welcome, may be happening in the politicking over climate change. I have written before of the orchestrated villification that comes the way of climate scientists from some people and organisations who are unconvinced of the case for human-induced climate change – “sceptics”, “deniers”, as you wish. Journalists, including your humble correspondent, receive our fair share too. This week, for the first time, I am seeing the same pattern from their opponents. Joe Romm, the physicist-cum-government-advisor-cum-polemicist, posted a blog entry highly critical of the Arctic ice article I wrote last week. Headlined “Dreadful climate story by BBC’s Richard Black”, it takes me to task, essentially, for not mentioning human-induced climate change explicitly. He then gives my email address and invites his readers to send in complaints. Many have, perhaps swayed by judgemental terms in his post such as “spin”, “inexcusable”, and “mis-reporting”, with several citing his interpretation as gospel truth. He is as entitled to his views as anyone else. But this is, at least in my experience, the first time that “warmers” – those who, like Dr Romm, believe climate change is taking us to hell in a handcart and who lobby for more urgent action on the issue – have resorted to the internet equivalent of taking banners onto the street in an attempt to influence reporting of the issue. At least, that is the surface complaint; what my omission hides, he hints heavily, is an agenda aimed at downplaying the impacts of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions…”
What makes Richard Black, or his editor, think it’s a good use of his time to cover this matter ?
He has admitted, in my direct hearing, that he hasn’t really read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, so maybe he should start there instead of covering the A, B, C of normal BBC “environmental reporting protocol” ?
How he’s supposed to write, and the material he’s expected to cover for the BBC audience, and the slant he is told to pitch, seem to be deliberately excluding the very real risks of very real and dangerous change in the climate :-
“…heard from a former BBC producer colleague that internal editorial discussions now under way at the BBC on planning next year’s news agenda have in fact explicitly parked climate change in the category “Done That Already, Nothing New to Say.”…”
Well, now, there’s several things that really need to be said in response to that :-
a. Global Warming is accelerating. As each year passes, Climate could change in more extreme ways. Are the BBC ready to tone down everything that comes their way ? Will we be forced to “believe our own lying eyes” ? Will they even bother to cover the next major flooding in Cockermouth, Cumbria and Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire or Carlisle or anywhere in Devon ?
b. Global Warming suffers from a 30 to 40 year time lag, approximately. Richard Black would know this if he’d only read the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and the work of the esteemed James Hansen. Surely the threat of further serious temperature rises “in the pipeline” would be a story big enough for Richard Black and the BBC ?
c. Climate Sensitivity (the response of the Climate to Global Warming causing further warming) is in the process of being revised – upwards. This is a big deal – bigger than the Pope and the Spending Cuts, and it’s tantamount to disgraceful to water this down.
Why can’t the BBC bring itself to report on the serious nature of Climate Change ?
What stops the BBC from paying attention to the Arctic region meltdown saga, or the worsening Asian drought-flood swings ? What about the feast and famine in European agriculture ? What about the water wars in South America, also brewing in the United States of America ? What about the massive changes in Australian farming ? What about the worsening sustainability of African crop production ? What about the constant weather extremes ? The increase in extreme heatwaves ? China’s responses to environmental risk ? Surely there’s meat enough there for plenty of rapportage and quality journalism ?
Perhaps the BBC have flagged from the conflicts of their social duty to tell the full, unexpurgated truth. If so, why don’t they just admit they don’t want to cover the Environment, because it’s so riven with debate and qualitative views, sack everybody with any training and credentials and ability to spell and get on with feeding the public what it really wants : pap and pop ?