As Anthony Watts writes, “Climategate 2.0 emails — They’re real and they’re spectacular!” Including this item from Alex Kirby, an “environmental correspondent” for the BBC. As Watts notes, “Clearly, there an incestuous relationship between climate science and the BBC:”
date: Wed Dec 8 08:25:30 2004
from: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
subject: RE: something on new online.
to: “Alex Kirby” <[email protected]>
At 17:27 07/12/2004, you wrote:
Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to
spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can
well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we
are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any
coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and
being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an
expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them
say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it
clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
In another post, Watts notes that the University of East Anglia, “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.
We’ve noted similar efforts amongst US journalists to block a free flow of information and a diverse exchange of opinions for a while now. Back in 2007, we highlighted the essay that ran in Editor and Publisher, old media’s house organ titled, “Climate Change: Get Over Objectivity, Newspapers.” The previous year, David Mastio warned at Real Clear Politics that when it comes to the media and their environmental reporting, the MSM is less than objective, for a reason:
Next time you read a magazine cover story like the one Time just published (“Be Worried. Be VERY Worried. Polar Ice Caps Are Melting … More And More Land Is Being Devastated … Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities… The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame”) you should remember one little fact: U.S. media companies, including Time Warner, donate more to the environmental movement than any other industry. Companies like The New York Times, Gannett, Tribune, ABC, CBS and NBC have donated more than a half-billion worth of ad space since the 1990s to raise money for some of the nation’s most extreme environmental groups. And yes, that was billion with a B.
To put that number in perspective, America’s media companies donate more to environmental groups every year than the much-feared Olin Foundation’s spent annually in its effort to build the institutional foundation of the conservative movement.
Five years later, we all now know that objectivity and the MSM in general are mutually exclusive terms. Of course, as ClimateGate 2.0 and its predecessor in 2009 prove, sometimes it’s a case of bias by omission.
Update: All of this socialism disguised as doomsday pseudo-science has real world consquences, as Doug Ross writes:
If we don’t begin defunding the Environmental Protection Agency — first by handing a pink-slip to President Obama in 2012 — the damage to the electric grid will be catastrophic.
We can see that the eco-Marxist Left is well on its way to shredding America’s energy infrastructure. 2012 may be the last chance we have to save this country from the Cloward-Piven Leftists bent on — in President Obama’s words — “transforming this society”.
What this society would ultimately be transformed into under Obama I leave as an exercise for the reader.
I hope whoever the GOP candidate is, he understands how much is on the line next year — and that the left will throw absolutely everything against him as a way to maintain the status quo and preventing some much needed hope and change from coming to America.