BBC’s Richard Black resorts to deception and spin

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.

6 Responses to “BBC’s Richard Black resorts to deception and spin”


  1. 1 Brian J. BAKER 25/01/2011 at 10:41 am

    That’s right year zero – Khmer Rouge style!!

  2. 2 Mike 25/01/2011 at 10:41 am

    Well said!

    I too found the headline of this particular article entertaining: “ClimateGate affair: ‘Learn and move on’, …”

    As you say, sweep it under the carpet rather than assess what truly went on and what it means to the integrity of not just climate science but science in general.

  3. 3 richard krooth 09/03/2011 at 5:04 am

    As an author on emergent climate warming, I’m rather shocked at the language you are using to attack Richard Black’s reporting.

    You might also stick to the factual record, as much as any of us now knows, rather than try to disparage his person, writing style, and reporting abilities.

    Thanks for considering this reply.

    Prof. Richard Krooth, Juris Doctor, Ph.D.

  4. 4 Autonomous Mind 10/03/2011 at 9:09 pm

    Dear Professor Krooth,

    It is not just Richard Black’s reporting but his evident bias in the subject matter that is the problem. You would be better advised asking Mr Black to stick to the factual record rather than producing the deliberately skewed analysis he provides and the bias by omission in his content.

    As an author you no doubt have researched the subject sufficiently to understand the BBC has openly stated it holds a partial position on the subject of climate change and does not exhibit anything like balance because it refuses to give air time to report the research of scientists whose findings counter the orthodoxy adopted by the corporation. It is not merely reporting style or even bias, it is anti scientific. As such it fails to serve the interests of the public compelled to pay for the output under pain of fine or imprisonment.

    Kind regards,


  1. 1 Tweets that mention BBC’s Richard Black resorts to deception and spin « Autonomous Mind -- Topsy.com Trackback on 25/01/2011 at 9:05 pm
  2. 2 Black Hole on Air | phenell Trackback on 27/12/2011 at 3:49 am
Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive