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 ?
4 replies on “Richard Black : “Bad Boy” ?”
>>a. Global Warming is accelerating.
no it isn’t.
[ UPDATE FROM JOABBESS.COM : OH YES IT IS. READ THE IPCC. HONESTLY, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVEN’T BOTHERED. THE FACT THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS ACCELERATING IS A KEY PART OF THEIR FINDINGS. ]
>>Climate Sensitivity (the response of the Climate to Global Warming >>causing further warming) is in the process of being revised
no it isn’t. Now go away and read some scientific literature. Let me recommend something really worth reading and see if you understand the reference….
[ UPDATE FROM JOABBESS.COM : OH YES IT IS. GO READ THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS, ESPECIALLY THE LAST SIX MONTHS. THEN COME BACK TO ME, CONTRITE, ON BOTH KNEES, SUPPLICATING FOR FORGIVENESS. ]
Do you ever wonder, why amongst even ‘warmist’ (Richard Black’s word ! 😉 ! )blogs, you very rarely get ANY comments, even from your own side.
There’s no need to worry about my emotional state, seriously. I couldn’t be calmer, dear.
Comments ? Who needs comments when one is well-read, cited and ahead of the curve ?
The urge to write never leaves…there’s so much to write about. Haven’t you noticed ?
by Oliver Wendell Holmes
If all the trees in all the woods were men;
And each and every blade of grass a pen;
If every leaf on every shrub and tree
Turned to a sheet of foolscap; every sea
Were changed to ink, and all earth’s living tribes
Had nothing else to do but act as scribes,
And for ten thousand ages, day and night,
The human race should write, and write, and write,
Till all the pens and paper were used up,
And the huge inkstand was an empty cup,
Still would the scribblers clustered round its brink
Call for more pens, more paper, and more ink.
Do you think the general public will buy into the latest rebranding of CAGW PR exercise…
‘Global Climate Disruption’
Or will they just laugh and say, ‘Natural Climate Cycles’ this cold predicted winter, in the Northen Hemisphere?
Personaly, I though ‘Climate Wierding’ was quite good, if a bit ‘Harry Potter’
Also I would like be known as a ‘climate Cynic’ now as the green PR company (un, UK governments green pr agency of choice) say I should be labbelled….
Now we have: ” Sell the Sizzle” – Futerra. Media PR communication.
“Played out between Climate Cynics and Climate Activists in boardrooms or staterooms but only recently in living rooms.”
don’t forget the ‘polar bear poster child’
You’ve sold the sizzle so now
show the alternative. If you lead with a positive vision, you don’t then have to pull your punches on climate chaos. The choice is now Make clear that change won’t wait, and that the decision moment is now
Climate change doesn’t just affect
weather patterns and polar bears. Lay out the impactson hospitals, schools, and the local environment.Hit lifestyles and aspirations. The more powerfuland compelling your vision, the more hard-hitting you can make the threat of climate chaos.
take a long look at their client list….. (BBC, UK government,UN Environment Program, etc
“sell the Sizzle” – Futerra