Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed.
The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.
They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.
(via Darleen Click)
Impossible! Everyone knows that only Exxon, Shell, and Big Tobacco money going science can cause improper influence. (/sarc)
Well it is good to know how much it costs to buy off British journalists. They are pretty cheap.
Wonder how much our Eco Greenie Jihadis would have to pay to buy off the CBC?
Oh wait, The CBC actually pays Dr. Fruit Fly to spew greenie propaganda.
Yeah
Its going to be very interesting to see just what CBC has paid out to the Fruit-Loop.
This gives a new meaning to the term “journalistic integrity”.
Meanwhile the REAL climate change deniers remain in denial:
http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2011/11/climategate-20-will-media-do-its-job-time
“Should mainstream climate scientists have to change the way they have worked for generations?’”
Yes, they should.
It’s about time they were held accountable for their prediction of a new impending Catastrophic Ice Age in the 1970s being wrong and totally at odds with their more recent Catastrophic Global Warming prediction, both of which were foisted upon the whole world with overweening hysteria by a conspiratorial mainstream media.
“Well the flat earth society doesn’t get much coverage either. Neither does creationism. UFOs don’t get much of a mention.
The reason is of course that the consensus among the scientific community is that all of them are drivel. Whether you lot like it or not exactly the same applies to the science of climate change.
That just happens to be how it is, and you can pick out untruths and distortions from the skeptic camp, very few of which are written by people with the relevant scientific qualifications, but you can’t change that fact however hard you try.
– Dave, North Yorkshire.”
I thought this comment from the Mail was worth reposting as it sums up the beliefs of so many in government,media,and the rest of the AGW
community.
We still have a long way to go to win this war.It seems this religion has really taken hold of these people’s souls,and even though there is evidence of corruption at every turn,they cling to their faith like devout zealots.
Unfortunately, too many are making a lot of money off this scam,and faith in the almighty dollar exceeds any other.
Progressive journalists in the BBC or Canada’s CBC, CTV and G&M are a complete write off. They never understood climate science or even proper scientific process to begin with so any anti-AGW science is irrelevant to their science and math challenged minds. Only the politics mattered – bigger government, higher taxes, internationalism and all the rest of progressive Utopia. I kinda thought some of them like A.Coyne or J.Kay (who at least seem capable of non-progressive thought) might question the integrity of the scientists at the center of the AGW world and, by extension, the accuracy of the “science” they produced as well as the political and economic solutions designed to fix AGW. Disappointing but not really surprising.
Perhaps reform will have to start with members of science societies in North America and Britain – force their executive boards to revise their support for AGW in light of the very unscientific behavior of climate scientists. Real scientists – those not in collusion with politicians, crony capitalists and progressive media – may not be as willing to look like fools for Gore’s, Mann’s, etc. “Cause” (Crusade?).
Retired scientists are the most likely trailblazers. Following the brave example of Dr.Ivar Giaever and the late Dr.Hal Lewis should be easier once the Climategate 2.0 e-mails are completely digested and linked with the initial Climategate release. Actually, groups of retired scientists should be the ones invited to conduct thorough investigations into these matters. They can no longer be bullied into submission and are less likely to give a da*n about character assassinations by “The Team”. Many large, diverse groups chosen by their peers and known for their personal integrity instead of those handpicked by politicians and university presidents will have a better chance of getting at the truth of the AGW drama.
*sorry to do this in parts but I have no GD idea which part is getting stuck in the filter this time:
Progressive journalists in the BBC or Canada’s CBC, CTV and G&M are a complete write off. They never understood climate science or even proper scientific process to begin with so any anti-AGW science is irrelevant to their science and math challenged minds. Only the politics mattered – bigger government, higher taxes, internationalism and all the rest of progressive Utopia. I kinda thought some of them like A.Coyne or J.Kay (who at least seem capable of non-progressive thought) might question the integrity of the scientists at the center of the AGW world and, by extension, the accuracy of the “science” they produced as well as the political and economic solutions designed to fix AGW. Disappointing but not really surprising.
Perhaps reform will have to start with members of science societies in North America and Britain – force their executive boards to revise their support for AGW in light of the very unscientific behavior of climate scientists. Real scientists – those not in collusion with politicians, crony capitalists and progressive media – may not be as willing to look like fools for Gore’s, Mann’s, etc. “Cause” (Crusade?).
Retired scientists are the most likely trailblazers. Following the brave example of Dr.Ivar Giaever and the late Dr.Hal Lewis should be easier once the Climategate 2.0 e-mails are completely digested and linked with the initial Climategate release. Actually, groups of retired scientists should be the ones invited to conduct thorough investigations into these matters. They can no longer be bullied into submission and are less likely to give a damn about character assassinations by “The Team”. Many large, diverse groups chosen by their peers and known for their personal integrity instead of those handpicked by politicians and university presidents will have a better chance of getting at the truth of the AGW soap opera.
Retired scientists are the most likely trailblazers. Following the brave example of Dr.Ivar Giaever and the late Dr.Hal Lewis should be easier once the Climategate two release are completely digested and linked with the initial Climategate release. Actually, groups of retired scientists should be the ones invited to conduct thorough investigations into these matters. They can no longer be bullied into submission and are less likely to give a damn about character assassinations by “The Team”. Many large, diverse groups chosen by their peers and known for their personal integrity instead of those handpicked by politicians and university presidents will have a better chance of getting at the truth of the AGW soap opera.
Remember . . it is Climate Scientology.
Math is difficult.
They chose Journalism.
Anyone watch QP this morning . . . the scrum section was Ottawa journalists upchucking their own bathwater and glowing like the intellect of a 3 watt light bulb.
Rather humorous to watch them drive on.
What I find sort of sadly amusing is he passion so many who are aware of the fraud in climate science have in their beliefs on this topic, but just put the blinders back on when it comes to the natural medicine/pharma medicine dichotomy, Keyensian economics/Austrian economics cat fight…etc.
The only difference is the internet allowed AGW skeptics to do an end run around the information gatekeepers of orthodoxy before it was too late.
Look at the patterns in the three ideas and the benficiaries of these ideas beng dominant. The Al Gore’s and other useful idiots aren’t the originators of the ideas, just trained seals being used as front men. If you’ve noticed some turmoil in your RRSPs and other retirement accounts and you are savy enough to know that your losses are someone else’s gains, looking for those raking it in while destroying the global economy might be a target rich environment for understanding. But, it is Grey Cup Sunday and I gotta go.
This will continue as long as the science community is an organ of socialism. The fact that the state funds these pampered lysenkoists while being their only client should be the first clue of systemic corruption. Who pimps hysteria? Politicians, so they can save the planet, heal the sick, feed the hungry, protect the botched and bungled, turn lead to gold….ad infinitum. These science sell-outs are serving their customer while binding their three-way symbiotic relationship with hysteria merchants of the media (who happen to be in the tank for the most statist of politicians). Nice gig if you can get in on it.
Liberate science by privatizing research and education, the existing institutions are well beyond reform.
And David Burge, aka Iowahawk, nailed it today on Twitter,
“If the climate science is settled, why are we still funding it?”
The big money was taken out well before the e-mails surfaced.
http://21stcenturywire.com/2010/08/27/the-great-collapse-of-the-chicago-climate-exchange/
That AGW fraud stuff is coming up on OurCBC anon right after the CFL exposeh. (Go Greens)
It’s funded in CBC’s Red-Green budget allocation here along with:
“Don’t say the D-word”
(D for David)
Nice to have documentary evidence of what we knew d@mn well was going on all along.
Hey trolls! Eat it!
Man, I wish John Cross still posted here, I’d unload a dump truck on that guy…
So many great comments above.
Some people should be going to jail for this fraud, but don’t hold your breath.
peter, not sure where you are coming from, but most on this blog do not have any use for Keynesian economics.
The moral of the story is that neither green activist groups nor broadcasting organizations should get one cent of tax money.