The BBC’s official response to the report from the Science and Technology Select Committee, by Richard Black, provides us with confirmation of everything Peter Sissons writes in his book about the BBC propaganda on climate change.
Knowing, as all journalists do, that many people read the first few paragraphs of an article and often turn their attention to something else, Black gets the message he wants people to understand in nice and early. If people take nothing else from the article they will get what Black wants them to see:
Inquiries into issues raised by 2009’s climate e-mail hack did have flaws, a committee of MPs concludes.
But despite questions over remits and omissions, they say it is time to make the changes needed and move on.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee does not find anything to challenge the prevailing view of human-induced global warming.
But it says data should be more open, and rules on how Freedom of Information (FoI) applies to science need reform.
Richard Black is a disgrace to journalism as the second and third paragraphs demonstrate. He is a cheap propagandist who is determined to push the man made global warming line in spite of any counter evidence. The standing committee did not have a brief to look for anything that challenged ‘the prevailing view of human-induced global warming’. Black deliberately put this in to make it appear as if they did and that the prevailing view has been validated. The committee’s remit was to focus on how the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (ICCER) and Scientific Appraisal Panel (SAP) did their job and addressed the issues raised. Black knows this very well because he read the summary as used the final paragraph as central thrust of his story.
It is impossible to trust the BBC’s coverage. Black is not impartial and he has long since abandoned journalistic ethics. Instead one has to read more widely to understand the issues, such as this commentary by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Biased BBC is equally unimpressed by Black’s deliberate distortion. Unsurprisingly, Bishop Hill’s brief early morning round up of coverage on the report shows that Black has taken exactly the same line as avowed AGW lobbyist, Nature.
That’s right Richard Black. Play it down, sweep it under the carpet, then carry on as if nothing happened. Erase if from the record, Consign it to the bin of history, Use it as your rationale for disregarding the serious question marks over CRU ever again. Reset the clock to year zero in order to continue your cheap propaganda effort, brainwashing of an unquestioning public and indulge your personal beliefs rather than the facts.