Britannia Radio

PREVARICATION - IT'S WHAT THEY DO...

>> WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 02, 2009

Professor Phil Jones, the man whose statistics-manipulating department at CRU is at the heart of ClimateGate, has stepped down, pending an investigation of what went on. To my amazement, the BBC is reporting the story this morning, but - true to form - the main aim of the item is to put across the professor's point of view, that "sceptics" (climate realists) have taken his words out of context and the whole thing is a storm in a teacup. 

Meanwhile, the real media gets on with reporting the facts. Bishop Hill has an item suggesting that Michael Mann and Professor Jones conspired together to knock climate realists using questionable data. And the redoubtable Lord Monckton has published a PDF report summing up the whole ClimateGate affair.

Compare and contrast that to the whitewash spouted yesterday by the BBC's Roger Harrabin.

NOT WITH A BANG, BUT A WHIMPER...

>> TUESDAY, DECEMBER 01, 2009

Today is the day that Britain lost almost 1,000 years of independence and became a vassal state of the EU. The Lisbon treaty (aka the European Constitution) came into effect. How did the BBC mark the event? With a predictable homily about how the 'treaty' has streamlined decision-making and will make the UK a much better place.

Meanwhile, the real EU agenda is becoming clearer. The Open Europe think tank has this in its daily press-round up: 

A headline in Le Figaro quotes Michel Barnier saying "The Commission is the EU's Prime Minister". The paper notes that Barnier said the European Commission "is a bit like the Prime Minister of Europe, a collective Prime Minister bringing together 27 countries which are united in their destiny." Of the new EU President Herman Van Rompuy he said: "he is a man of authority, who is going to surprise you. He will be perfect for this role".

Chances of the BBC reporting honestly our descent into further servitude? Zilch.

HARRABIN THE OSTRICH

How ostrich-like is Roger Harrabin? Very, is the answer. His latest post on ClimateGate discusses the veracity or otherwise of the IPCC. Yet again, he deals with the topic without reference to a single climate realist. And throughout, he assumes that the IPCC is, and has been, a legitimate scientific undertaking.

He also asserts that irrespetive of what happened at CRU:

Other scientists tell me they doubt the inquiry will affect the main course of scientific opinion, as the CRU temperature data set is very similar to the two other global sets, both in the US.

Does he read anything but that which confirms his own views? Bishop Hill hasthis about GISS (the main US equivalent of CRU): 

Since about 1990, there has been a reduction in thermometer counts globally. In the USA, the number has dropped from 1850 at peak (in the year 1968) to 136 now (in the year 2009). As you might guess, this has presented some “issues” for our thermal quilt. But do not fear, GIStemp will fill in what it needs, guessing as needed, stretching and fabricating until it has a result.

Who do you believe? A snake-oil salesman from the BBC or someone who actually researches and writes honestly about a topic which he knows about?