Skip to content

Richard Black And Tuvalu

May 13, 2010

Not for the first time Richard Black has mentioned Tuvalu as an example of a place experiencing “catastrophic” climate change. He has also mentioned the Maldives in the past as well.

In his latest propaganda rant, I mean piece of balanced journalism, Richard amongst the rambling has again mentioned Tuvalu as a place on the brink of disaster.

My challenge is very simple:

IS TUVALU BEING SWAMPED?

.

From the evidence, my conclusion is categorically “no”.

Lets cite some reasons why I believe that Tuvalu’s demise is nothing to do with climate change.

1. Sand has been extracted from the coasline to build with, eroding the beaches and giving not only an impression of an encroaching sea, but also allowing the sea to erode the coast line more efficiently.

“The island is full of holes and seawater is coming through these, flooding areas that weren’t normally flooded 10 or 15 years ago”

– Tuvalu environmental official, Paani Laupepa.

.

“This erosion is caused by man-made infrastructure. Tuvalu is being used for the issue of climate change. People are telling all these lies, just using Tuvalu to prove their point. No island is sinking. Tuvalu is not sinking. It is still floating.”

Elisala Pita, environmental official, Tuvalu.

“The land loss in Tuvalu is mainly caused by inappropriate human activities including coastal engineering and aggregate mining, and partly caused by cyclones. Moreover, all recent measurements (satellite altimetry, thermosteric sea level data and tide observations) so far have not been able to verify any sea level rise around Tuvalu islands.”

“Causes of land loss in Tuvalu, a small nation island in the Pacific” Qingdao Institute of Marine Geology

.

2.  Erosion as cited above has been accelerated by these “environmentally threatened” people developing the land at the expense of its stability. This is due to the usual increasing population problems.  Yes, despite the fact that 1000 people a year are leaving, the population has still grown by 1000 people since 2003!

Even worse, the population in 1985 was 8000, it is now more than 12,000 – a ONE THIRD INCREASE.

The “Government” of Tuvalu has been screaming for their population to be resettled for 20 years now.  It seems to me their agenda is motivated by getting a better deal for their people alright, as the deal on Tuvalu is poor even if it remains above sea level for ever, and they can see the population time bomb about to explode.

.  .

3.  French scientists have studied satellite from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite  and have concluded that thermal expansion in recent times from strong El Nino’s is the reason for measured water level increases that some scientists have found to be occurring locally. Basically,  when the water gets hot it expands, when it cools it contracts. This makes local, temporary rising and falling of sea levels more dramatic.

This graph shows recent changes in the Pacific ocean, from University of Colorado data, and you can clearly see the peaks as El Nino’s  gather strength (2006 as an example).

“One definitive statement we can make is that there is no indication based on observations that sea level rise is accelerating.”

– Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility

.

.

Conclusion.

My take is that for Tuvalu, the climate change panic is their Government’s “get out of jail free” card. Their population has exploded in the past 20 years, at a time apparently that everyone on the islands could see that it would be suicide to stay and increase their population.

This population bomb has also led to the fragile land being contorted beyond its limits, speeding erosion processes and forcing the land downwards in recent times.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, including in the study from the University of Hawaii that has been measuring tides on Tuvalu for 15 years, that sea level increases in that area are accelerating.  They also cannot  be sure what the proportions of sea level rise to land level fall actually is.

Undoubtedly the oceans are rising, they have been steadily rising since the last ice age started to come to an end and in fact are negligible now compared to at any time in the past 11000 years!

Tuvalu has problems, just like Bangladesh, Taiwan etc, but as usual most  of their problems can be traced to population explosions causing the draining and altering of landmasses that lead them to erode and subside. This, coupled with a historically low, but persistent rate of sea level rise, is just making their problems accelerate.

Bottom line:

Tuvalu should never have been home to anything more than a few fishing communities.  Human population growth is causing us to over-populate areas that anyone with a brain can see will suffer from sea level rises and falls over time.

It’s not the climate, it’s us stupid.

Advertisements
2 Comments
  1. barry Woods permalink

    Responsed to my BBC – climate bias complaints-
    I may be the one who posted ther response on the BBC R Black website:
    Drop me an email if you want more..

    BBC Complaints [T2010032100WGS010Z7769177]
    Dear Mr Woods

    Thank you for contacting the BBC.

    We wanted to let you know that we’ve received your recent complaint and will respond as soon as possible, however we hope you understand that the time taken to do so can depend on the nature of your complaint and the number of other complaints we’re currently dealing with. We issue public responses to concerns which prompt large numbers of significant complaints and these can be read on our website at:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

    We would be grateful if you would not reply to this email – in the meantime, we would like to thank you again for contacting us with your concerns and appreciate your patience in awaiting a response.

    Regards

    Alec Mackenzie
    BBC Complaints
    ____________________________
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

    —–Original Message—–

    >{Complaint:} Thank you for your reply.
    >
    >However, I am afraid you reply clearly demonstrates the BBC’s partiality..
    >
    >’so called ‘Climategate e-mails scandal’
    >
    >and:
    >
    >”The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific
    >experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer
    >justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But
    >these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should,
    >because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. Acceptance of a
    >basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of
    >the arguments surrounding both causation and solution.”
    >
    >This was a few years ago now.
    >Who are these scientific experts…
    >(the sceptical scientists, there are many, appear not to have been invited
    >to the meeting!)
    >
    >The bbc has refused to say… even after FOI requests.
    >If the BBC can make the descision based on their advice,
    >it is only appropriate for the public to know who these
    >people were.
    >
    >If you only invited those who are now implicated in the ‘scandal ‘
    >If you only listen to one side, you will only hear of one message..
    >
    >In light of recent events, IPCC, climategate, copenhagen failure,etc
    >And an acrimonous political ‘climate’ where :
    >Gordon Brown, says ‘Flat earther’, ‘anti science’,
    >Ed Milliband, says ‘climate sabatouers’
    >
    >Perhaps it is time for the BBC to reconvene this meeting,
    >and invite those scientists that are sceptical, not just self selecting
    >group of ‘climate scientists’ but those from other fields, astro physicists,
    > statisticians, geologists, etc..
    >(which in fact the people involved in ‘climate science’ are a mere subset
    >of, as it is a cross discipline problem of great complexity)
    >
    >To verify if it is still a valid position.
    >
    >Steve Mcintyre, Ian Plimer, Lindzen, Spencer, etc might be good candidates.
    >Lord Lawson might be a respectably contributor from the sceptics side, or
    >even Lord Monckton. For every activist/journalist like George Monbiot, you
    >might invite someone like Christopher Booker.
    >
    >I do believe the BBC have gotten far to close to the issue to be considered
    >impartial.
    >
    >Richard Black (and the BBC) is clearly considered to be onside, by those
    >implicated in the ‘climategate scandal’
    >
    >As a climategate email demonstrates.
    >The BBC’s Paul Hudson, writes a fairly obscure article on the BBC website.
    >Whatever happened to Global Warming:
    >
    >And those involved, the small group of scientists at the very centre of
    >IPCC/CRU. immediate response is to get in contact with Richard Black.
    >
    >Who does a good job, and is clearly considered to be on ‘message’
    >
    >———————————————————————————————
    >From: Michael Mann
    >To: Stephen H Schneider
    >Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    >Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:00:44 -0400
    >Cc: Myles Allen , peter stott
    >, “Philip D. Jones” ,
    >Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley ,
    >Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt
    >, James Hansen , trenbert
    >, Michael Oppenheimer
    >
    >extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its
    >particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and
    >he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather
    >person at the Met Office.
    >
    >We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be
    >appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard
    > Black what’s up here?
    >
    >mike
    >
    >———————————————————————————————————–
    >
    >Michael Mann, P Jones, James Hansens, etc in this email are KEY individuals
    >in promoting an AGW poltical agenda and are at the centre of the IPCC/CRU
    >controversy.
    >
    >Please note that this email is from, Michael Mann, whose ‘hockey stick’
    >graph, used by the IPCC, Al Gore’s ‘Inconevenient Truth to promote the AGW
    >cause to many millions of people, has been completely discredited
    >scientifically as worthless. (Steve Mcintyre – Climate Audit)
    >
    >The data sets, these people control, has been demonstrated to be interlinked
    > and not independent of data as claimed.
    >
    >The detail of your reply, has been shown to be incorrect,
    >when I have further time, I will send a point by point reply.
    >
    >The BBC are too close to see they are part of it.
    >
    >Regards
    >
    >Barry Woods
    >
    >——————————————————————-
    >—– Original Message —–
    >From:
    >To:
    >Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:36 AM
    >Subject: BBC News [T20100301025PS031Z7740984]
    >
    >
    >> Dear Mr Woods
    >>
    >> Thank you for your e-mail and comments to the BBC Trust regarding BBC News
    >> coverage of the issue of climate change in the wake of the so-called
    >> ‘Climategate e-mails scandal’. Please accept our apologies for the delay
    >> in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and
    >> are sorry you’ve had to wait on this occasion.
    >>
    >> Your e-mail has been passed to us by the Trust as it relates to matters
    >> which, in the first instance, are the responsibility of the BBC’s
    >> management. Under the BBC’s Royal Charter, the Trust has the distinct
    >> role of setting high-level strategic and editorial frameworks, but
    >> responsibility for day to day decisions within them rests with BBC
    >> management, so your correspondence has therefore been forwarded to us to
    >> respond to on their behalf.
    >>
    >> You might like to know that criticism that the BBC had underplayed the
    >> significance of the leaked e-mails was discussed during ‘NewsWatch’ on 4
    >> December. Our Environment Correspondent, Richard Black, commented as
    >> follows:
    >>
    >> “In quantitative terms I’m not sure that we have underplayed it. I don’t
    >> think that stands up but there is another side to – certainly comments
    >> I’ve had in from the public – which talk about the way in which we’ve
    >> treated it and whether we’ve asked the kind of questions that…perhaps
    >> need to be asked.”
    >>
    >> “…there are different views about how enormous it really is. I mean
    >> there are many in the scientific community who say that it doesn’t
    >> actually alter the scientific picture one jot. To start with, the Climatic
    >> Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is just one of a number of
    >> institutions in the world that keep records of global temperatures. So
    >> even if all the CRU interpretations and analysis turned out to be wrong,
    >> that doesn’t invalidate all the other analyses. And they also point out
    >> the fact that the raw data is not something that’s gathered by CRU – it’s
    >> used by CRU and analysed by CRU but the raw data is still out there.”
    >>
    >> As far as we are aware, the BBC was the first mainstream news organisation
    >> to cover the story – the following article by Mark Kinver was published on
    >> the BBC News website just after 14:00 on Friday 20 November:
    >>
    >> ‘Hackers target leading climate research unit’
    >>
    >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
    >>
    >> The morning after, our Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin, did a piece for
    >> the website looking at the arguments sparked by the leak:
    >>
    >> ‘Harrabin’s Notes: E-mail arguments’
    >>
    >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm
    >>
    >> Roger also covered the story for Radio 4 later that night.
    >>
    >> Martin Rosenbaum reported on the Freedom of Information aspects of the
    >> hack on Monday 23 November:
    >>
    >> ‘Hacked climate e-mails and FOI’
    >>
    >>
    >http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/11/hacked_climate_emails_and_foi.html
    >>
    >> ‘Today’ also covered the story on the Monday – the former Chancellor, Lord
    >> Lawson whose book ‘An Appeal to Reason’ is highly critical of the
    >> scientific consensus on climate change was on the programme, as was
    >> Professor Robert Watson – professor of environmental science at the
    >> University of East Anglia.
    >>
    >> Roger Harrabin reported on the leak and subsequent calls for a public
    >> inquiry into the science behind any deal made at the Copenhagen conference
    >> for Radio 4 news and the BBC World Service on Monday morning and again
    >> later that evening. Susan Watts’ piece led that night’s edition of
    >> ‘Newsnight’ and a live studio discussion with Professor Watson (UEA) and
    >> Professor Fred Singer from the University of Virginia followed.
    >>
    >> BBC North weather forecaster, Paul Hudson, blogged about it briefly that
    >> day and followed it up with a more detailed entry on 24 November:
    >>
    >> ”Climategate’ – CRU hacked into and its implications’
    >>
    >>
    >http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml
    >>
    >> ”Climategate’ – What next?’
    >>
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml
    >>
    >> Roger Harrabin covered the story further for the BBC News website on the
    >> Tuesday:
    >>
    >> ‘Harrabin’s Notes: E-mail impact’
    >>
    >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8377465.stm
    >>
    >> The BBC News Channel ran the story the same evening – excerpts from some
    >> of the leaked e-mails were read out and Bob Ward from the Grantham
    >> Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics was
    >> live in the studio for his reaction.
    >>
    >> These are just some examples of where the story was covered within the
    >> initial few days of it breaking. It also received coverage on the BBC News
    >> Channel on 2, 3 and 5 December; the ‘BBC News at Ten’ on 2 and 3 December;
    >> the ‘BBC News at Six’ on 3 December and on both the ‘BBC News at One’ and
    >> ‘Breakfast’ on 4 December. All this as well as on-going public comment on
    >> Richard Black’s blog:
    >>
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
    >>
    >> It has also been suggested that the claimed lack of coverage of this story
    >> is evidence that the BBC is biased against the dissident view in the
    >> climate change debate.
    >>
    >> This was rejected by the BBC’s Deputy Director of News, Steve Mitchell,
    >> during an interview for ‘NewsWatch’ on 4 December. When asked whether the
    >> BBC had taken a corporate decision to downplay the dissident view in the
    >> climate debate, he said:
    >>
    >> “I can categorically assure you there has not been any such decision and
    >> any such decision would be entirely at odds with the culture of the
    >> organisation. Our job is to pick our way through what is a highly complex
    >> scientific discussion and also to do so with a sense of proportion –
    >> making sure the full range of voices in these areas are represented.”
    >>
    >> The BBC’s Editorial Policy unit also issued the following statement, which
    >> was read out on the edition of ‘NewsWatch’ broadcast on 11 December:
    >>
    >> “Our job is to help audiences make sense of the issues and to report on
    >> where the centre of gravity lies in the debate. This is why, when we
    >> report on the variety of public opinion about global warming, we explain
    >> that the broad majority of climate change scientists say that the evidence
    >> is clear that human activity has contributed to global warming. The
    >> scientific background is not, of course, undisputed and we also feature
    >> sceptical voices. We aim to pick our way through what is a highly complex
    >> scientific discussion, making sure a range of voices is represented.”
    >>
    >> It is however important to note that on 18 June 2007 the BBC published a
    >> report on safeguarding its impartiality in the 21st century. It is the
    >> result of a project first commissioned by the BBC Board of Governors in
    >> conjunction with BBC management in November 2005 to identify the
    >> challenges and risks to impartiality. The report has been fully endorsed
    >> by the BBC Trust, the BBC Executive Board and the BBC Journalism Board.
    >>
    >> Below is an excerpt from the section of the report relating to coverage of
    >> the climate change debate:
    >>
    >> “The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific
    >> experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer
    >> justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But
    >> these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should,
    >> because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. Acceptance of
    >> a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny
    >> of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution.”
    >>
    >> The full report can be found on the BBC Trust website:
    >>
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/other/century21.shtml
    >>
    >> Our view is that the BBC covered this story at length and that we did so
    >> in a fair and impartial manner. We will continue to report on the climate
    >> change debate in this way, allowing appropriate airtime to both those who
    >> support the broad scientific consensus on the causes of climate change and
    >> to those who reject it.
    >>
    >> I hope this information is helpful and would also like to assure you that
    >> we’ve registered your comments on our audience log. I appreciate that you
    >> feel there are more stories to be covered and investigated by the BBC and
    >> the feedback we receive is compiled daily for all programme makers, news
    >> teams, and senior management, helping to shape future decisions and
    >> ensuring that your comments are circulated and considered across the BBC.
    >>
    >> You may also like to know that stories and debate topics of interest can
    >> be put forward via the following website:
    >>
    >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm
    >>
    >> Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your views.
    >>
    >> Regards
    >>
    >> Stuart Webb
    >> BBC Complaints
    >> __________________________________________
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> —–Original Message—–
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Why no bbc reporting of this:
    >> It would indicate that the science is very much not settled, Richard
    >> Black’s reporting might be considered as more of an advocate for AGW
    >> theory, than a bbc correspondent.
    >>
    >> Evidence of bias, ie non reporting, of 30,000 sceptical physicists
    >> (institute of Physics),
    >>
    >> Other recognises scientists, and institutions and their submissions
    >> listed here:
    >> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo
    >> /climatedata/contents.htm
    >>
    >> including:
    >> Royal Society of Chemistry
    >> Royal Statistical Society
    >> Professor of Computing at the Open University
    >>
    >> submission to the CRU email enquiry, today
    >>
    >> Comment found in the BBC Richard Black Blog:
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/forget_the_
    >> norfolk_polices_cri.html#comments
    >>
    >>
    >> 219:
    >> “Richard, why has the BBC not commented or ran a story on the “Institute
    >> of Physics”, who represent 36,000 UK Physicist.
    >>
    >> The IOP says the enquiry should be broadened to examine possible
    >> “departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation
    >> of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed
    >> conclusions to override scientific objectivity.”
    >>
    >> and
    >>
    >> It deplores the climate scientists’ “intolerance to challenge” and the
    >> “suppression of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with
    >> contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.”
    >>
    >> The physics institute observes that “unless the disclosed emails are
    >> proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for
    >> the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the
    >> credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context”.
    >>
    >> I was just wondering why this story, from a legitimate and scientific
    >> body has currently got NO PRESS on the BBC website.
    >>
    >> Oh, but then I realised that it’s in the current BBC charter that man
    >> made climate change IS real and therefore 36k Physicists et al must be
    >> wrong.
    >>
    >> Silly us.”
    >>
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
    >> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
    >> views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
    >> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
    >> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
    >> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
    >> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
    >> Further communication will signify your consent to this.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/
    This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
    If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
    Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
    Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
    Further communication will signify your consent to this.

    AND:
    ——————————————————————–
    Subject: BBC News [T20100301025PS031Z7740984]

    > Dear Mr Woods
    >
    > Thank you for your e-mail and comments to the BBC Trust regarding BBC News
    > coverage of the issue of climate change in the wake of the so-called
    > ‘Climategate e-mails scandal’. Please accept our apologies for the delay
    > in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and
    > are sorry you’ve had to wait on this occasion.
    >
    > Your e-mail has been passed to us by the Trust as it relates to matters
    > which, in the first instance, are the responsibility of the BBC’s
    > management. Under the BBC’s Royal Charter, the Trust has the distinct
    > role of setting high-level strategic and editorial frameworks, but
    > responsibility for day to day decisions within them rests with BBC
    > management, so your correspondence has therefore been forwarded to us to
    > respond to on their behalf.
    >
    > You might like to know that criticism that the BBC had underplayed the
    > significance of the leaked e-mails was discussed during ‘NewsWatch’ on 4
    > December. Our Environment Correspondent, Richard Black, commented as
    > follows:
    >
    > “In quantitative terms I’m not sure that we have underplayed it. I don’t
    > think that stands up but there is another side to – certainly comments
    > I’ve had in from the public – which talk about the way in which we’ve
    > treated it and whether we’ve asked the kind of questions that…perhaps
    > need to be asked.”
    >
    > “…there are different views about how enormous it really is. I mean
    > there are many in the scientific community who say that it doesn’t
    > actually alter the scientific picture one jot. To start with, the Climatic
    > Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is just one of a number of
    > institutions in the world that keep records of global temperatures. So
    > even if all the CRU interpretations and analysis turned out to be wrong,
    > that doesn’t invalidate all the other analyses. And they also point out
    > the fact that the raw data is not something that’s gathered by CRU – it’s
    > used by CRU and analysed by CRU but the raw data is still out there.”
    >
    > As far as we are aware, the BBC was the first mainstream news organisation
    > to cover the story – the following article by Mark Kinver was published on
    > the BBC News website just after 14:00 on Friday 20 November:
    >
    > ‘Hackers target leading climate research unit’
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
    >
    > The morning after, our Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin, did a piece for
    > the website looking at the arguments sparked by the leak:
    >
    > ‘Harrabin’s Notes: E-mail arguments’
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm
    >
    > Roger also covered the story for Radio 4 later that night.
    >
    > Martin Rosenbaum reported on the Freedom of Information aspects of the
    > hack on Monday 23 November:
    >
    > ‘Hacked climate e-mails and FOI’
    >
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/11/hacked_climate_emails_and_foi.html
    >
    > ‘Today’ also covered the story on the Monday – the former Chancellor, Lord
    > Lawson whose book ‘An Appeal to Reason’ is highly critical of the
    > scientific consensus on climate change was on the programme, as was
    > Professor Robert Watson – professor of environmental science at the
    > University of East Anglia.
    >
    > Roger Harrabin reported on the leak and subsequent calls for a public
    > inquiry into the science behind any deal made at the Copenhagen conference
    > for Radio 4 news and the BBC World Service on Monday morning and again
    > later that evening. Susan Watts’ piece led that night’s edition of
    > ‘Newsnight’ and a live studio discussion with Professor Watson (UEA) and
    > Professor Fred Singer from the University of Virginia followed.
    >
    > BBC North weather forecaster, Paul Hudson, blogged about it briefly that
    > day and followed it up with a more detailed entry on 24 November:
    >
    > ”Climategate’ – CRU hacked into and its implications’
    >
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml
    >
    > ”Climategate’ – What next?’
    >
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml
    >
    > Roger Harrabin covered the story further for the BBC News website on the
    > Tuesday:
    >
    > ‘Harrabin’s Notes: E-mail impact’
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8377465.stm
    >
    > The BBC News Channel ran the story the same evening – excerpts from some
    > of the leaked e-mails were read out and Bob Ward from the Grantham
    > Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics was
    > live in the studio for his reaction.
    >
    > These are just some examples of where the story was covered within the
    > initial few days of it breaking. It also received coverage on the BBC News
    > Channel on 2, 3 and 5 December; the ‘BBC News at Ten’ on 2 and 3 December;
    > the ‘BBC News at Six’ on 3 December and on both the ‘BBC News at One’ and
    > ‘Breakfast’ on 4 December. All this as well as on-going public comment on
    > Richard Black’s blog:
    >
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
    >
    > It has also been suggested that the claimed lack of coverage of this story
    > is evidence that the BBC is biased against the dissident view in the
    > climate change debate.
    >
    > This was rejected by the BBC’s Deputy Director of News, Steve Mitchell,
    > during an interview for ‘NewsWatch’ on 4 December. When asked whether the
    > BBC had taken a corporate decision to downplay the dissident view in the
    > climate debate, he said:
    >
    > “I can categorically assure you there has not been any such decision and
    > any such decision would be entirely at odds with the culture of the
    > organisation. Our job is to pick our way through what is a highly complex
    > scientific discussion and also to do so with a sense of proportion –
    > making sure the full range of voices in these areas are represented.”
    >
    > The BBC’s Editorial Policy unit also issued the following statement, which
    > was read out on the edition of ‘NewsWatch’ broadcast on 11 December:
    >
    > “Our job is to help audiences make sense of the issues and to report on
    > where the centre of gravity lies in the debate. This is why, when we
    > report on the variety of public opinion about global warming, we explain
    > that the broad majority of climate change scientists say that the evidence
    > is clear that human activity has contributed to global warming. The
    > scientific background is not, of course, undisputed and we also feature
    > sceptical voices. We aim to pick our way through what is a highly complex
    > scientific discussion, making sure a range of voices is represented.”
    >
    > It is however important to note that on 18 June 2007 the BBC published a
    > report on safeguarding its impartiality in the 21st century. It is the
    > result of a project first commissioned by the BBC Board of Governors in
    > conjunction with BBC management in November 2005 to identify the
    > challenges and risks to impartiality. The report has been fully endorsed
    > by the BBC Trust, the BBC Executive Board and the BBC Journalism Board.
    >
    > Below is an excerpt from the section of the report relating to coverage of
    > the climate change debate:
    >
    > “The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific
    > experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer
    > justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But
    > these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should,
    > because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. Acceptance of
    > a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny
    > of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution.”
    >
    > The full report can be found on the BBC Trust website:
    >
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/other/century21.shtml
    >
    > Our view is that the BBC covered this story at length and that we did so
    > in a fair and impartial manner. We will continue to report on the climate
    > change debate in this way, allowing appropriate airtime to both those who
    > support the broad scientific consensus on the causes of climate change and
    > to those who reject it.
    >
    > I hope this information is helpful and would also like to assure you that
    > we’ve registered your comments on our audience log. I appreciate that you
    > feel there are more stories to be covered and investigated by the BBC and
    > the feedback we receive is compiled daily for all programme makers, news
    > teams, and senior management, helping to shape future decisions and
    > ensuring that your comments are circulated and considered across the BBC.
    >
    > You may also like to know that stories and debate topics of interest can
    > be put forward via the following website:
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm
    >
    > Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your views.
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > Stuart Webb
    > BBC Complaints
    > __________________________________________
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
    >
    >
    >
    > —–Original Message—–
    >
    >
    >
    > Why no bbc reporting of this:
    > It would indicate that the science is very much not settled, Richard
    > Black’s reporting might be considered as more of an advocate for AGW
    > theory, than a bbc correspondent.
    >
    > Evidence of bias, ie non reporting, of 30,000 sceptical physicists
    > (institute of Physics),
    >
    > Other recognises scientists, and institutions and their submissions
    > listed here:
    > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo
    > /climatedata/contents.htm
    >
    > including:
    > Royal Society of Chemistry
    > Royal Statistical Society
    > Professor of Computing at the Open University
    >
    > submission to the CRU email enquiry, today
    >
    > Comment found in the BBC Richard Black Blog:
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/forget_the_
    > norfolk_polices_cri.html#comments
    >
    >
    > 219:
    > “Richard, why has the BBC not commented or ran a story on the “Institute
    > of Physics”, who represent 36,000 UK Physicist.
    >
    > The IOP says the enquiry should be broadened to examine possible
    > “departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation
    > of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed
    > conclusions to override scientific objectivity.”
    >
    > and
    >
    > It deplores the climate scientists’ “intolerance to challenge” and the
    > “suppression of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with
    > contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.”
    >
    > The physics institute observes that “unless the disclosed emails are
    > proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for
    > the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the
    > credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context”.
    >
    > I was just wondering why this story, from a legitimate and scientific
    > body has currently got NO PRESS on the BBC website.
    >
    > Oh, but then I realised that it’s in the current BBC charter that man
    > made climate change IS real and therefore 36k Physicists et al must be
    > wrong.
    >
    > Silly us.”
    >
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/
    > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
    > views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
    > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
    > Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
    > reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
    > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
    > Further communication will signify your consent to this.
    >
    >

  2. Dave Lise permalink

    Wonder if Mr Black has read this on the BBC web site?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10222679.stm
    It would look like those doomed sinking islands are actually growing…
    Amazing what happens when you look at what’s actually happening and don’t rely on an IPCC computer to make it up!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: