the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Up is Down, Down is Up and Left is right

Posted by Jeff Id on August 8, 2010

BBC Apologizes for Accuracy in Reporting

Today at Bishop Hill, I learned that instead of UEA apologizing to the world for the lies, distortions, manipulations, alarmism, wasting of tax money and general malfeasance, the BBC (leftists extraordinaire), have apologized to the UEA for ——

wait for it…

wait…

The first thing to say is that the sentence : “The facts are that the emails were stolen and they revealed that some researchers in the university’s Climatic Research Unit had been distorting the debate about global warming to make the threat seem even more serious than they believed it to be” is incorrect. For that I apologise wholeheartedly on behalf of the Today Programme. ….. in mitigation I can only say that this was a live programme being put together under the pressure of events, and as you said when you came to see BBC News, we were dealing with a matter that hadn’t at that stage been fully investigated and which was the subject of widespread comment and conjecture.

What the F#$% is wrong with this world.  The UEA guys said exactly what they did.  It’s right there! As black and white as any James Bond movie you’ve ever watched. They are rescinding the truthful reporting,  and replacing it now with one designed to hide the decline of government funded science (govsci) —- in an apology, no less!!

Propagandists and thieves in my opinion.

At least friggin’ Fidel Castro still agrees with the BBC.

“The planet’s population could be regulated. Renewable resources can be preserved. Climate change can be prevented.”

I never thought I would see this level of insanity in my life.  How is it that people still pay for this garbage.

Well it’s their business, I only get to yell at the idiots.

I guess this means that the BBC will do their best to be less accurate in the future.


23 Responses to “Up is Down, Down is Up and Left is right”

  1. Brian H said

    Actually, the principal verb phrase in that sentence is “were stolen”. And that’s incorrect, indeed! They were miraculously leaked by an ethical whistleblower within the corrupt CRU Cabal.

    And emails produced by researchers at work paid by the public purse are not their personal property. They are, or should be, public documents. So it’s pretty hard to see how they could be “stolen” by that same public! 😉

  2. Derek said

    ” How is it that people still pay for this garbage. ”

    Because we have to. It’s the law, just like the (they didn’t do anything wrong) decisions regarding climategate come to think of it.

    Have you read the BBC “charter” by the way, in that it is clearly stated the BBC ONLY has to cover the consensus side of things,
    on certain politically correct and beneficial “sciences” it would seem.

  3. M. Simon said

    Brian,

    I agree that “the emails were stolen” is what is wrong. But the sentence was constructed so as to mislead. Very clever those Brits. They should be writing treaties. Eh? Wot? They have disgruntled allies? Oh! The perfidy of Albion.

  4. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I never thought I would see this level of insanity in my life. How is it that people still pay for this garbage.

    Jeff ID, I must admit that I am surprised at your surprise in these matters. These people and communication organizations are, if anything, predictable in their actions/reactions.

    I would have to agree with Bishop Hill that the BBC was wrong in that statement, if for no other reason then “to make the threat seem even more serious than they believed it to be” would require them to be capable of reading minds. The sentence is poorly worded. Jeff, I think your problem is more with UEA in that they might have used that apology to spin their problems.

    Actually I would agree that using “stolen” for the emails is also misleading, but that phrase is one the UEA would not oppose. I have paid careful attention of late to confidential information that was obtained in the manner of the Climategate emails and given that the revealations are favorable to the media outlet doing the reporting, they invariably avoid the use of the term stolen.

  5. Skip said

    But Jeff, we’ve always been at war with EastAsia – didn’t you know that?

  6. David S said

    #5 Skip You are William Connolley and I claim my £5.

  7. Jeff Id said

    #4 I wonder just what mindreading or climate knowledge is required to get what ‘hide the decline’ means. Or cut off the endpoints (kelly) or redefine what peer review means (Jones)? And all the minor stuff that is even worse, that everyone knows you understand.

    This isn’t a close call.]]

    my wording is too strong – sometimes that happens when writing quickly. I get exactly what you are saying and while the UEA WILL use it for propaganda purposes, this was a spoken statement which got the context right that is now being apologized extensively for. Basically we know that the UEA put a bunch of pressure on the BBC through backchannels to get the letter written.

  8. ecoeng said

    I very gratefully received a post WWI solid Gen ‘VW’ 50s – 60s education, fortunately mostly taught by English teachers, lecturers and professors who had lived through the 1st half of the twentieth century and had usually fought in WWII.

    What I find particularly galling about this stuff that it is now occurring in the very western nations whose people were forced to fight the orc who took over the Reichstag in the 1930s, easily succeeding in perverting an entire nation’s notion of truth in language, listened for decades to the crude perversions of language and meaning of the great dictators of Communism, Stalin and Mao and, most importantly, were gifted with the writings of a George Orwell who identified the phenomenon precisely.

    Was it all for nothing? Did all those perversions of meaning have no meaning? Are we now seeing the ultimate effects of post-modernism on the fast food TV age educations of Gen X and Y?

    Is this now the post-Orwell age – even in green and pleasant England?

    As I now suffer through an Australian election campaign dominated by ‘spin’ on every subject and rhetoric bleached of almost all real intent I’m increasingly convinced it is so.

  9. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Fidel and the BBC are both strongly left of center, and global warming is a leftist’s policy dream…. most any action or tax, even the most extreme, can be justified. So why the surprise they agree on GW?

    When I am overseas and have to choose between the BBC and any other news network, I take the “any other” option every time. The BBC is too biased in its coverage to be worth watching at all.

  10. intrepid_wanders said

    One must always remember all those BBC pensions tied up in those triple A stocks in the ECX. It is reprehensible, but it is a clear motive. I wonder if Catlin insurance sponsors underwrote those pensions.

  11. Brian H said

    Kenneth;
    #4;
    I’m sure the writer had no intention of referring to “stolen” for his mea culpa; I doubt he knows that the grammar actually works that way.

  12. stan said

    “I guess this means that the BBC will do their best to be less accurate in the future”

    And how exactly could they do that? Wouldn’t that be like Dan Rather trying to be more biased? Or Bill Clinton being less honest? Or Barack Obama being more clueless?

    When someone has already reached the state of the superlative, the comparative becomes meaningless.

  13. omanuel said

    BBC, UAE, Nature, Science, NAS, NASA, ESA, NOAA, DOE, EPA etc are starting to feel the heat, but they have not yet felt the flames of wrath that will consume their false pride if the public fully grasps that their tax funds have been used by these agencies to deceive the taxpayers.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  14. steveta_uk said

    Jeff, I think the reason for the apology lies in this phrase:

    “distorting the debate about global warming to make the threat seem even more serious than

    they believed
    it to be”.

    This was not true, hence the apology.

    If JH had said this:

    “distorting the evidence about global warming to make the threat seems as serious as they believed it to be”

    then no apology would have been required.

  15. Geoff Sherrington said

    For those with an interest, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has this Charter:

    AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ACT 1983
    – SECT 6
    Charter of the Corporation

    (1)The functions of the Corporation are:

    (a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system consisting of national, commercial and community sectors and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide:
    (i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and
    (ii) broadcasting programs of an educational nature;

    (b) to transmit to countries outside Australia broadcasting programs of news, current affairs, entertainment and cultural enrichment that will:
    (i) encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs; and
    (ii) enable Australian citizens living or travelling outside Australia to obtain information about Australian affairs and Australian attitudes on world affairs; and

    (c) to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia.

    (2) In the provision by the Corporation of its broadcasting services within Australia:

    (a) the Corporation shall take account of:
    (i) the broadcasting services provided by the commercial and community sectors of the Australian broadcasting system;
    (ii) the standards from time to time determined by the Australian Broadcasting Authority in respect of broadcasting services;
    (iii) the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs of wide appeal and specialized broadcasting programs;
    (iv) the multicultural character of the Australian community; and
    (v) in connection with the provision of broadcasting programs of an educational nature—the responsibilities of the States in relation to education; and
    (b) the Corporation shall take all such measures, being measures consistent with the obligations of the Corporation under paragraph (a), as, in the opinion of the Board, will be conducive to the full development by the Corporation of suitable broadcasting programs.
    (3) The functions of the Corporation under subsection (1) and the duties imposed on the Corporation under subsection (2) constitute the Charter of the Corporation.

    (4) Nothing in this section shall be taken to impose on the Corporation a duty that is enforceable by proceedings in a court.

  16. sod said

    they revealed that some researchers in the university’s Climatic Research Unit had been distorting the debate about global warming to make the threat seem even more serious than they believed it to be

    this sentence was wrong. the apology was necessary.

    there was no climategate. there was no crime.

    please start to face reality.

  17. Gary said

    For many people, but especially those with a leftist philosophy, confession of any slight to the paradigm is all that really matters (Orwell’s 1984 spelled it out plainly). The truth doesn’t matter; it’s compliance with the groupthink that counts.

  18. GHowe said

    I hate conspiracy theories, but my bs detectors have really been pegging out lately.

  19. Jeff Id said

    I guess Sod is happy with it.

    What a joke.

  20. Brian H said

    Sod is useful; he gives a clear picture of the state of mind of the troo believer. He’ll be among the very last to succumb to the evidence.

  21. Suibhne said

    Its quite incredible, the New Scientist has also grovelled to the UEA because their spineless reporting of Climategate was not sycophantic enough.

    A new orthodoxy is being ruthlessly applied, it goes something like this:

    All three inquiries into “Climategate” have found the UEA to be entirely innocent.
    Their very important work for the planet has been impeded by malicious troublemakers.
    OK, some private e-mails showing slight irritation by these heroes of science (as they were being hounded by the malicious troublemakers) should never have been allowed to see the light of day.

    Anyone stupid enough to contradict this new history has been warned.
    Shut up or else!

  22. Brian H said

    Keep pushing the message that the inquiries were sycophantic white-washes, with glaring conflicts of interest.

    And the New Scientist has been almost scaldingly warmist from the beginning. What’s new?

  23. PhilJourdan said

    The jabberwocky is in overdrive.

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: