I was away for the Oct 15-17 weekend, attending the Heartland Institute ICCC14 climate conference. Poor as I am, I’d be remiss if I didn’t again thank the two people who generously donated to cover the cost of registering for the conference and the costs of the hotel and fossil fuel for the drive there. While there, I not only met up with old friends and benefactors, I gained new friends and supporters, and I gleaned information on both the science side of the issue and its unnerving “Great Reset” / Environmental Social Governance” political side. Plus, a slide from Dr Will Happer’s presentation (FYI, back in late 2015, I covered how he doesn’t like Greenpeace much) turns out to be something I can borrow to illustrate the latest update of how the corrupting money in this issue seems to be found entirely in the enviro-activists side of this issue.
“было бы корыто, a свиньи-то будут.” Roughly translated, “if you have a trough, there will be pigs.”
So, did I succeed in getting a direct response from the top ECU administrator regarding my appeal? Yes! He responded to my August 21 email appeal which I reproduced in my August 24 blog post.
What was his response on August 31? Continue reading
…. or at least attempted to do so by every available means available to me. At least one roadblock slowed me down. Continue reading
Did the BBC finally admit fault or effectively defend their broadcast podcast report from August 3, 2020 (and its days-earlier internet-only release), in which the fossil fuel industry stood accused of colluding with skeptic climate scientists to spread disinformation that undercut the otherwise ‘settled science’ of human-induced global warming? Read their official response for yourself. We report, you decide. Continue reading
Within my “Part 1” July 31, 2020 blog post / Aug 1 2020 WUWT guest post — just short of one year ago — I noted how I had made a formal complaint to the BBC about four egregious errors within Radio 4’s Episode 6 podcast report, where my complaint challenged the report’s insinuations that a pair of ‘leaked industry memo sets’ proved the fossil fuel industry deceived the public about the harm of global warming. It took two months for the BBC to at least partially admit that the guest featured within the podcast, ex-Greenpeace staffer / ex-Ozone Action staffer (the group that first gave the “reposition global warming” memo set its first major media traction in the late 1990s) Kert Davies, had inserted a racially-charged label into one of the supposedly ‘leaked memo sets’ that is demonstratively not anywhere in the set. I detailed that angle in my “Part 3” October 6, 2020 blog post, and further noted within it that my three other complaint points had not been addressed by the BBC at all, and I also directly alerted the BBC about that problem.
The BBC is a giant bureaucratic operation, it takes a while for complaints to get to the proper people. In October and November 2020, I received auto-replies from the BBC saying they would consider my other complaint points when they had time. Having not heard a word after that all the way up to May 22nd this year, I again reminded them at that time how my complaints remain largely unaddressed. I got yet another “we are currently dealing with a higher than normal volume of cases” auto-reply June 1st ………… and then received what your see verbatim below on July 7th, in the italicized, indented paragraphs. Continue reading
Dan Rather, for those who aren’t familiar with him, is a veteran U.S. TV news anchor who had a fairly good career right up to the point where he apparently overlooked the importance of checking the veracity of clearly fabricated documents when he reported how they appeared to undercut the integrity of 2004 U.S. presidential re-election candidate George W. Bush. It’s a Rather Shameful tale of self-inflicted tragedy where he appears to have never accepted the reality of his journalism blunder. Making matters far worse, Dan Rather later essentially said President Bush would be proven guilty when evidence is found to support that. So, either the concept of innocence before being proven guilty is out the window, or the basic tenets of bulletproof journalism is out the window. Neither situation looks good for his legacy.
When I first heard the announcement of the new “Dan Rather Medals for News and Guts Award,” I guessed it was simply Babylon Bee-style headline satire, a dry humor jab at how badly mainstream media reporting has devolved lately. This sort of satire is easy to make up: The Gina McCarthy Prize for Preserving Natural Beauty, the BP Most Effective Construction Cost Savings award, the Mike Bloomberg Savvy Spending Trophy. Continue reading
And in doing so, they inadvertently dug a deeper hole for themselves. Continue reading
In my July 31, 2020 Part 1 blog post (handily reproduced as a guest post at WattsUpWithThat the following day), I detailed how a BBC Radio4 podcast’s claims about the fossil fuel industry engaging in disinformation campaigns to undercut concern over man-caused global warming is based on spurious references to what turns out to be leaked industry memo strategies that were never actually implemented. I also noted how the podcast incorrectly implicated conservative U.S. talk show host Rush Limbaugh in their accusation, and illustrated how the podcast guest providing the memos very strangely worsened the overall situation by needlessly adding an arguably racially charged word into his quote of one of the unused memo phrases that was not actually in the memo.
Rush Limbaugh somehow learned of that BBC online podcast and its scheduled August 3 on-air radio broadcast, and spoke directly about it to his 15 million+ listeners during his own August 3 live broadcast radio show. The verbatim transcript for that segment (with a link at the bottom to my WUWT guest post version of my Part 1 blog post) is here. Below are excerpts from the segment, where I highlight the key items in red: Continue reading
If I sound like a broken record endlessly repeating the faults of prominent accusers relying on those worthless “reposition global warming theory” ‘leaked memos’ to indict skeptic climate scientists of corruptly colluding with fossil fuel industry people in alleged disinformation campaigns, it’s because the Al Gore side of this issue continually relies on them as the cornerstone ‘smoking gun evidence’ supporting that accusation. For example: in Gore’s 2006 movie; in the latest global warming lawsuits; in the latest online ‘news’ articles; in recent college student ‘journalism’ reporting efforts that are reported about at left-wing organizations; in recent ‘journalism’ podcasts highly resembling this current BBC podcast that rely on the same source person; in recent tweets by people directly associated with those accusers (tweets / prominent accusers, plural); on and on and on. Don’t get me started on how far back this enslavement is seen to those worthless memos.
The latest regurgitation of the story is the podcast in my title above, where the BBC makes the blunder of trying to tie mega-famous conservative U.S. radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh into the story. Episode 6 is available online right now for listening while being scheduled for on-air radio broadcast this coming Monday, August 3, 2020. I submitted a formal complaint with the BBC to pull the podcast from its schedule because of four major factual errors within the presentation, namely two unfounded claims made about two sets of ‘leaked industry memos’, an unfounded insinuation about the reach of an infomercial read by Rush Limbaugh, and the egregious insertion of an ethnicity word into a quote from one of those never-used memos that is not actually in the memos. Continue reading
In late 2012, an interesting scandal broke out concerning how the British Broadcasting Service – the BBC – was trying very hard to avoid releasing the names of ‘experts’ who had contributed to a report which concluded that the BBC wasn’t especially obligated to give equal time to skeptics on the topic of man-caused global warming. While the subsequent release of the names revealed the ‘experts’ were potentially quite biased, the question remains, what caused the BBC to heed the advice of such people in the first place? Continue reading