CBC and Camp Weaverland vs reality

So the British Columbia provincial election is over. Premier Christy Clark and the BC Liberals (contra all the pundits’ and pollsters’ great expectations) came through with flying colours that landed them – and their platform – a majority government, with more seats in the provincial legislature than they had before the election was called!

No doubt trying to make the best of a bad situation unfolding, CBC’s green-heart-on-sleeve coverage on May 14 was, well, appalling!

They continued to honk for Weaver‘s unearned laurels at least twice during the early part of the evening. Whether my unacknowledged tweet:

@cbcnewsbc You need to change your Weaver script! Nobel Prize not for science & awarded to IPCC (Panel of nations) http://wp.me/pJtnm-1c6

caused them to drop this over-hyped example of deliberately misleading Weaver-spin, I have no way of knowing. But I do know that in their post-election coverage of their favourite “star”, the CBC was right back at it:

Greens not to blame for NDP loss, says leader Sterk

Green-NDP vote split allowed Liberals to win 12 ridings, say critics

In the aftermath of the NDP failure to win the B.C. elections, some pundits are blaming the Green party for splitting the vote on the left, but not everyone agrees with the analysis.

[...]

[...] the Green Party’s first MLA Andrew Weaver denied the Green Party split the vote.

“We didn’t split the vote. We are the vote in Oak Bay-Gordon Head,” said Weaver on Tuesday, after winning his seat. [emphasis added -hro]

“We are the vote …”?! That’s almost as inane and meaningless as another Weaverism™ that appeared in the National Post on the eve of the election:

“Government doesn’t have the information, government is there to facilitate the information.”

The reality is (to use one of Weaver’s repeated appeals to his own authority – and repeatedly unchallenged – prefaces in an “interview” with CBC’s Evan Solomon on Solomon’s “Power and Politics” show, complete with yet another viewing of Weaver’s unearned Nobel laurel), as even the Weaver-cheerleading Victoria Times-Colonist acknowledged yesterday:

Oak Bay-Gordon Head is a relatively affluent riding. The 2006 census reported a population of 48,420, with 36,500* voters [emphasis added -hro]

* Eligible voters in Oak Bay-Gordon Head for this election was 37,443. Total votes cast in all 134 polls in this riding was (courtesy of National Post):

Your math may vary (as, evidently does that of Andrew “I’m a climate scientist and we are the vote” Weaver) but by my count, of the eligible 37,433 voters in Oak Bay-Gordon Head a mere 9,602 (< 26%) actually voted for Weaver! I know we have a first past the post system of voting which does have some inherent problems, but that’s the way it is.

However, Andrew “we are the vote” Weaver seems to be (conveniently?!) oblivious to the fact that those who did not vote for the CBC’s “star”, garnered 14,351 votes – a “significant” number in excess of those garnered by Andrew “we are the vote” Weaver.

Did the CBC tell its readers/listeners/viewers about Weaver’s [free speech for me but not for thee] libel suit against the National Post (and the “novel” remedy he’s seeking)? Not bloomin’ likely!

Did the CBC tell its readers/listeners/viewers about Weaver’s practice of slamming the virtual door in the face of those who dare to ask … uh … inconvenient questions? Not bloomin’ likely!

But I digress …

Did the CBC learn any lessons about its dutiful recitation of Weaver-spin vis a vis the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore? Not bloomin’ likely!

As the right-side visual “effects” in Solomon’s “Big Green win” story at one point predictably and dutifully visually reiterated:

Did the CBC choose to repeat the Weaver-spin unearned laurel on which he continues to choose to rest? You betcha! The CBC piece at the top of this post dutifully reported:

Weaver, a Nobel Prize winning climatologist, defeated long-time Liberal incumbent Ida Chong by about 2,400 votes in the Vancouver Island riding of Oak Bay – Gordon Head.

In light of all the above, I invite my readers to gimme’ one good reason why I – or anyone – should trust the word of Andrew “we are the vote” Weaver, or of the cheer-leading green-heart-on-sleeve CBC. Perhaps one might be forgiven for the rather distinct impression that – with a throw of the election dice – the voters of Oak Bay-Gordon Head have landed on one of the squares of Monopoly … the climate change game.

CBC honks for IPCC-nik Andrew Weaver AND censors comments

In my previous post of May 8, I had posed the question: CBC censoring again – or honking for IPCC’s Andrew Weaver?

And I believe that the CBC has now provided the answer. Well, actually wrt the “honking” this was provided sooner than I had thought – and broadcast on National TV (h/t Alex Cull in his comment).

Alex’s link is to a segment of the April 28 National News. Here’s a screen capture from that segment:

The adulation and glorification inherent in Wendy Mesley’s introduction (with the following long-lingering image in the background):

before the cutaway to the main event of Chris Brown’s report, included a statement that the BC Greens are turning to “star power“. And we all know how very impressed the CBC is with green “star power”! Check out today’s Sunday Edition on CBC radio. which includes a 30+ minute segment with hypocrite-extraordinare, Al Gore who’s currently flogging his latest fact-free predictions of doom and gloom (not to mention bad-mouthing Canada’s oil-sands deposits, which no doubt delighted Weaver!) But I digress …

In his April 28 “report”, Brown reinforced (by accident or design) Mesley’s intro. He described Weaver as a “climate change superstar“. And – for reasons perhaps best-known only to himself, to Weaver and to the cameraman (if not the CBC editor(s) who scrupulously vet all stories before they go on air) – provided viewers with yet another glimpse of Weaver as “Nobel-award winning” scientist:

I didn’t count how many seconds the camera lingered on the above before panning down to:

[Sidebar: A funny thing happened on the way to capturing the Mesley-Weaver image above. You will notice that the other three images (which I had captured yesterday) are ... uh ... framed by the red banner "CBC Television" above - and by a "footer" which indicated that this was from the April 28, 2013 3:17 segment of  The National, followed by:

Green Weaver

Global warming expert Andrew Weaver is running for the Green Party in the upcoming provincial elections in B.C.

Yet when I went back earlier today to capture the Mesley-Weaver medley, the banner and footer were nowhere in sight! Now this certainly wouldn't be the first time that the CBC has engaged in undated and undocumented now-you-see-it-now-you-don't posting behaviour, as Morley Sutter has noted in a comment on my previous post. But it is somewhat odd, don't you think?! End Sidebar]

How strange that the CBC seems incapable of basic fact-checking regarding Weaver’s unearned “Nobel” laurels. As Donna Laframboise had reported last October:

The facts are as follows: Weaver is merely one among thousands of scientists who contributed their time to the preparation of IPCC reports over the past two decades. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore and to the IPCC. The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. Its membership consists of nations – not individuals.

Weaver’s Nobel claim is spin. Self-aggrandizing, inaccurate, misleading spin.

See also Laframboise’s follow-up post in which she provides photographic evidence of Weaver’s bobbing and weaving around his unearned “Nobel-winning” laurels:

Last October when he announced his “reluctant” [see below!] candidacy, Lavin Agency’s bio of Weaver was headlined as follows:

Lead Climate Scientist & Co-winner of Nobel Peace Prize

By January of this year, this billing had … uh … evolved to:

Lead Climate Scientist & Member of Nobel Peace Prize-winning Panel

But this new improved billing is an instance of Weaver engaging in “Self-aggrandizing, inaccurate, misleading spin”.

If he had any commitment towards truth in self-advertising, rather than puffing up his image with such unsustainable claims as:

“his groundbreaking work in the field – in the trenches – of climate science [and that he is one who has] re-energized a new generation of discussions on climate change and sustainability”

Weaver would have acknowledged that the “trenches” in which he works are primarily high-priced computer simulations. He would further have acknowledged that his “new generation of discussions” includes slamming the virtual door in the face of those who dare to question his claims and assertions, or who might not agree with his prescriptions for what he calls “the action we need”.

And speaking of Weaver’s “Self-aggrandizing, inaccurate, misleading spin” consider the following excerpts from Weaver’s recent exercise in Huff-Po self-puffery:

Andrew Weaver.Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of Victoria

I Joined the Green Party Because I’m a Scientist

Posted: 05/08/2013 11:43

[...] I guess, despite being a climate scientist whose work is recognized around the world, according to Megan Leslie, that means I am not concerned about climate action.

The reason I joined the Green Party of BC was not because I was yearning for power, or willing to parse the truth and join in the hyper-partisan spin of the major parties. I joined the Green Party because it is the only party to consistently support climate action — carbon pricing, an end to fossil fuel subsidies, aggressive efforts in energy efficiency and demand-side management and the steady expansion of renewable and green energy. These steps would improve our economic performance, create tens of thousands of new jobs across Canada, while preserving a sustainable world for our children.

The only time a major party was willing to call for a tax shift, to reduce income taxes and increase pollution taxes, was in 2008 under Stephane Dion’s Liberal leadership. [...]

What Canadian politics needs is a party that is more interested in respectful debate and dialogue, in pressing for climate action as a daily commitment, than parties that swing with the winds of political expediency.

I never imagined I would be a candidate for any party. As a scientist, I am way outside my comfort zone. But when I look at my children and imagine what their future will be if we continue with politics as usual, I realized I could no longer sit on the sidelines.

The decisions being made in Victoria and Ottawa are too important to be left to the politicians. [...]

Greens understand we will not be forming government any time soon. But we equally believe it is critical to have representatives in our legislatures who will support other parties when they have a good idea, criticize those who twist the truth, condemn those who block action, and work to promote cooperative, positive decisions to reduce greenhouse gases. Let’s stop pointing fingers and work together to get the action we need. [emphasis added -hro]

Well, I suppose his current claim that he “joined the Green Party because [he's] a scientist is somewhat consistent with his telling CBC’s Brown that his decision to “engage” in the political process because he believes that it’s the “final thing a scientist can do”. But, to my mind, this is considerably at odds with his earlier claim that he has “a passion for politics“.

Indeed, some might ask: was he lying then, or is he lying now? But I couldn’t possibly comment!

As for Weaver’s singing the praises of Stephane Dion’s “green shift” platform … perhaps he has (conveniently?) forgotten that Canadian voters resoundingly rejected Dion’s green dreams. Then again … considering his claim during his prime-time-live April 28 CBC interview, that fellow greenie and Federal MP, Elizabeth May, has far more “influence than 100 backbenchers” perhaps Weaver doesn’t really give a damn what Canadian voters might think – or how they might have chosen.

And please spare us this ludicrous appeal for “respectful debate and dialogue”. Unless Weaver and/or one of his fans would care to tell us what exactly is “respectful” about his rants against PM Stephen Harper, as noted in the Apr. 28 video and in a Nov. 2010 Victoria Times-Colonist interview which I had documented here:

The UVic climatologist, sputtering words like “unbelievable” and “dictator” and “shocking affront to democracy,” says he hopes the opposition will force Harper’s minority government to fall. “He’s got to get kicked out. This is Canada, not Zimbabwe . . . or maybe it is.

In that November 2010 post, I had concluded by observing:

Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to Weaver that he needs to make a choice: Does he want to be known as a thoughtful, respected scientist or an incoherent environmental activist/advocate who is only capable of mindlessly mouthing echoes of Michael Mann’s mantras?

It would seem that in the interim, Weaver has definitely opted for the latter. Ironically, shortly after Weaver first launched his campaign last October (long before he slammed the virtual door in my face!) when I had asked him via twitter [see my Update to this post] to give me one good reason that I should tell my friends in his riding, Oak Bay-Gordon Head, to vote for him, Weaver had responded:

Ensure evidence forms the basis decision-making rather than decisions forming the basis of evidence-making

Wow! What a slogan, eh?! Too bad that all the evidence to date, strongly indicates that for Weaver, his “decisions” as to what the Province (if not the country!) needs – as embodied in his litany of policy prescriptions and dutiful recitation of the latest and greatest scary stories (not the least of which are his rapidly escalating extinction fictions) – have no basis in empirical evidence. Regardless of what his computer-simulations “in the trenches” might show.

So, I can only suggest to my friends in Oak Bay-Gordon Head … Do be very careful out there when you’re casting your vote on May 14.

As for the CBC’s comment-censoring practices … I believe that the evidence is now in: Yes, they do censor comments for no valid reason.

But – before I write to the Ombudsman, regarding their failure to correct the false claim that Weaver is a “Nobel-winning” scientist – I would invite a representative of the CBC to provide me with chapter and verse of their Submission Guidelines in accordance with which the “moderator” was acting (and which I must have “violated”) when rejecting my post, repost and subsequent comment, as I had documented in my previous post, and updates thereto.

CBC censoring again – or honking for IPCC’s Andrew Weaver?

[Please see updates at end of this post -hro]

The CBC occupies a unique position of trust. Not only is it the most substantial and broadly-based broadcast journalism organization in Canada, it is funded, through Parliament, by the people of Canada. The CBC therefore considers it a duty to provide consistent, high-quality information upon which all citizens may rely. [emphasis added -hro]

From CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Policies

In my CBC News Online – British Columbia Morning Digest – 2013-05-07, the following had “top billing”:

For readers not familiar with the British Columbia political scene, there will be a provincial election on May 14; currently the BC Green Party has no seats in the provincial legislature. So they would need to jump from 0 to 4 in order to achieve “official” party status. As I have noted previously, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Lead Author, Andrew Weaver, is a candidate – and the Deputy Leader of the BC Green Party.

Needless to say the headline grabbed my attention, so I followed the “more” link.

This was at approximately 10:00 AM PDT or in CBC-speak (as I discovered a few minutes ago when I saw that the video had changed and the page Last updated read 7:19 PM) PT. The text indicated that the Party Leader, Jane Sterk, does not stand much of a chance in her riding, followed by:

A conscience in the legislature

But the party might have a better shot in neighbouring ridings, namely Oak Bay-Gordon Head, where Nobel-winning climate scientist Andrew Weaver is representing the Green Party.

“We’re really pleased,” he said. “It’s exciting. It’s been a really, really solid campaign. The momentum is building, there’s a lot of volunteers, a lot of enthusiasm.”

Oh, my … there he goes again: resting on Nobel laurels he knows has not earned! Because the CBC has a “duty to provide consistent, high-quality information upon which all citizens may rely“, I felt it incumbent upon me to advise the CBC of this error. So I posted a comment:

“where Nobel-winning climate scientist Andrew Weaver”

Sorry, someone needs to do some basic fact-checking, here. Weaver, a climate modeller, is NOT a “Nobel-winning” anything. To describe him as such is to allow him to rest on laurels he has not earned.

He is (in addition to being a candidate and Deputy Leader of the BC Greens) a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And as far as I can tell, he sees no conflict of interest between the requirement that IPCC Authors be objective and his political affiliations and aspirations.

It was the IPCC that – along with Al Gore – was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (in 2007). And we all know how tarnished that award has become.

Voters in Oak Bay Gordon Head might also be interested in knowing that Weaver is not particularly open to, well, inconvenient questions and observations. In the virtual world, his response (via twitter) is to “block” those whose questions and observations he does not like.

Which suggests to me that, in “real life”, he just might slam the door in your face, if he doesn’t like your questions or views!

What a way to win friends and influence people, eh?!

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/ipccs-andrew-weaver-cant-stand-the-heat-in-his-tweet-kitchen/

Posted: 05/7/2013 10:16 AM PDT

And I waited for my comment – or at least a correction to the above article – to appear. Neither event had occurred by 3:00 PM PDT, although several other comments had certainly passed moderation. Consequently, I decided to repost with the following preface:

I wonder why it is that CBC’s “moderation” practice is so, well, untimely!

I had submitted a comment at 05/7/2013 10:16 AM PDT At that point, the timestamp on the Most Recent Comment (of approx 50 as I recall) was 10:05 AM ET.

Comment count is now up to 117, with the timestamp of the Most Recent Comment showing as 2:35 PM ET. So, I’m not sure why my [1:16 p.m. ET] comment is nowhere in sight! Oh, well, perhaps its just one of those inexplicable gremlin generated glitches. Hence, this repost:

For the record, my reposted text was the same as the above – except for the timestamp, and a slight reformatting of the last two paragraphs, in order to stay within their character-count:

Which suggests to me that, in “real life”, he just might slam the door in your face, if he doesn’t like your questions or views! What a way to win friends and influence people, eh?!

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/ipccs-andrew-weaver-cant-stand-the-heat-in-his-tweet-kitchen/

May 7, 3:15 PM PDT

And here I sit several hours later (and the Comment Count up to 134, and most recent timestamp is 2013/05/07
at 10:34 PM ET from “Meggy”) Now I’m sure that the ET moderator must be fast-asleep by now, so – according to the CBC’s Submission Guidelines – my guess would be that “Meggy” is a “Trusted” member whose comments can bypass moderation.

I read these Submission Guidelines, btw, and I didn’t see anything in there that I might have violated. So the continued non-appearance of my comment is somewhat of a mystery.

Oh, well … maybe tomorrow the moderator will release my comment. My past experience has been that whenever I decide to post on their practices, eventually my comments have appeared.

Of course, considering the timestamp – and depending on how many other comments are waiting in the moderation queue – it’s quite possible that few (if any!) will ever see it.

In the meantime, I was going to share the video they’d evidently uploaded at 7:19 PM PT, with a cameo of Weaver and a voice-over telling viewers that he is a “Nobel-winning climate scientist”. But WordPress doesn’t seem to like the CBC’s embed code. So I leave you with this screen capture from the video:

Is CBC censoring comments – or honking for Weaver?!

Stay tuned, folks!

UPDATE: 05/8/2013 12:18 PM

Comment count on CBC’s “false news” item is now 135, and (surprise, surprise) there’s no sign of either of my comment submissions, so I have just submitted the following:

Well, it seems that when an opportunity to wear its green heart on its sleeve presents itself, CBC has no shame about being remiss in its “duty to provide consistent, high-quality information upon which all citizens may rely”

Setting aside the fact that for some inexplicable reason (well, certainly none that I can see in their submission guidelines) my now twice attempted comment submission is nowhere in sight, how can we rely on the quality of CBC’s “information” when they choose to continue to perpetuate the meme that Andrew Weaver is a “Nobel-winning” scientist?

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/cbc-censoring-again-or-honking-for-ipccs-andrew-weaver/

Posted: 05/8/2013 12:17 PM PT

UPDATE 2: 05/11/2013 12:22 AM PDT So my third attempted comment has not appeared.

I wonder if I’ve made CBC’s “blacklist” for daring to question their sloppy (to be kind) “reporting” [see Morley Sutter's comment below for yet another instance of CBC's green heart on sleeve recycling of the "Nobel" meme]

And see also this SunTV video CBC IS WATCHING YOU :-)

CBC still censoring comments?

[Please note update below -hro]

Canada’s (taxpayer funded) CBC has a long history of unquestioningly promoting Big Green’s agenda. As I’ve noted previously, they seem to be following in the footsteps of Auntie Beeb (the U.K.’s BBC).

As I’ve also mentioned previously, I rarely watch (or listen to) CBC programs. But I do subscribe to their twice daily “News Digest”. Some days when an item catches my eye, I’ll take a look. And this sometimes leads me to a featured article (demonizing Israel or promoting the agenda of Big Green).

Yesterday was one of those days. Here’s what appeared as a “feature” on the March 25 10:00 p.m. National News:

Hidden cameras tell a tale of two lunchrooms

A group of students wanted to know whether nice digs mean better recycling habits

After dutifully watching this video, I posted the following in the comments (of which at the time of my posting there were none!):

Interesting story, but … what are the “demographics” of those who frequent the two cafeterias? How far apart are their physical locations? What are the most likely courses of study of those who frequent these cafeterias?

Could these non-attributed factors have had some influence on the recycling behaviours of the students studied?

Until we have these additional details, it seems to me that one should add this “study” to the ever-increasing list of papers that claim an influence of “climate change” – without acknowledging that even if this is the case, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that whatever “climate change” – formerly known as “global warming” – may or may not be occurring is primarily “caused by” human generated C02 (known to be a very small percentage of the total 3% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere).

For those who mistakenly believe that the output generated by (the increasinngly ubiquitous) “computer models” = data, it isn’t. Furthermore, those who describe such exercises as “experiments’ [as such modellers, including Canada's green-heart-on-sleeve Andrew Weaver**, are inclined to do] can only do so if they have arbitrarily redefined “experiments”.

** see http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/ipccs-andrew-weaver-cant-stand-the-heat-in-his-tweet-kitchen/

As I said, an interesting story.

But I do so miss Barbara Frum who would most certainly have questioned the “fudge” factors in this lightweight contribution to the sad, long history of CBC’s annals of promoting Big Green’s agenda.

[Posted 03/25/2013 11:24 PM PDT]

It’s most unfortunate that Peter Mansbridge, who introduced this particular piece of pap, seems to have forgotten what he wrote a few days earlier about Frum, from whom he could have learned much. Quoting Frum he wrote:

“I listen for something that sounds so authentically right and dead on, and so fresh, and so unpatterned and unlikely, that it’s got a ring of truth,” [Barbara Frum] once said. “That’s what I look for because there is so much fudge in this world today. Everybody is so polite, everybody says things that kind of throw you off the course.”

But it’s also interesting to note that in this particular “report”, climate change -formerly known as global warming – is not even mentioned. Could it be that CBC is signalling a shift of gears from “all climate change all the time” to “sustainable development”? The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) seems to be making such a shift, one should not expect the CBC to be too far behind, eh?!

I’ll let you know if/when my comment passes the CBC’s antiquated “pre-moderation”.

UPDATE: 03/26/2013 11:50 AM PDT The “pre-moderator” appears to have approved my comment. One of the others who commented on this post has provided a link to the actual paper:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0053856

Why the CBC could not have provided this link in their original article is left as an exercise for the reader.

Untrustworthy CBC blindly follows in “Auntie Beeb’s” footsteps

Canada’s CBC and the U.K.’s BBC like to wrap themselves in the flag of “public trust”. Yet there are two major issues in which such trust has been shown to be both misplaced and blatantly abused: their coverage of Israel and of “climate change”. Christopher Booker had eloquently documented a number of concerns on the climate change front about a year ago.

You may (or may not) be familiar with the Kafkaesque experiences of Harmless Sky blogger, Tony Newbery in his long battle to obtain from the BBC the names of the purported “best experts” whose advice had led them to abandon any pretense of the impartiality demanded by their charter. Whether familiar or not, you would do well to read Andrew Montford’s Conspiracy in Green for the backstory and Maurizio Morabito (aka Omnologos)’s account of more recent developments: his discovery of the list of participants that the BBC had gone to such inordinate and expensive efforts to avoid disclosing.

Just as they had previously expended such funds and efforts to avoid disclosing the findings of the Balen Report, which was a review of their “coverage” of Israel. As I had noted in a recent comment on Newbery’s blog after the BBC had “responded” to Melanie Phillips’ account of what has become known as 28gate:

Seems to me that they are following in the footsteps of the IPCC in their haste to “revisionize” and paper-over their foibles and failings. Considering the full context of [Melanie] Phillips’ post (and noticing particularly that to which they did not respond) they’ve done themselves further injury.

Don’t know about you, but I am having considerable difficulty squaring:

[the seminars were] not created to produce programming nor set story direction [emphasis added -hro]

with their claim in the next paragraph that:

BBC has refused disclosure on the basis that the documents were held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature,

Additionally, their reliance on (the “authority” of):

BBC Trust’s science review of last year praised our coverage

which they did publish with great fanfare, serves to shine the spotlight on the self-serving hypocrisy of their adamant refusal to publish the Balen Report (a review of their “coverage” of the Middle East).

Although, I suppose one must give them some “credit” for the consistency of their arrogance and very expensive obfuscatory stonewalling when questioned by members of the public they are supposed to be serving.

Newbery also has some interesting observations regarding the now released Report of the Leveson Inquiry on Culture, Practices, and Ethics of the Press (on the results of which I had speculated last week). Press coverage of matters pertaining to climate change and Israel constituted very few pixels in Leveson’s report, all quite distorted.

Newbery cited the following excerpt from Leveson’s report:

[...] the public must be in a position to understand what is fact (and therefore to be relied on as such) and what is opinion … There is, of course, no bright line for the way that accurate facts are described, or for the choice of accurate facts that are reported and it is recognised that journalists do not have the same standards of impartiality that affect broadcasters.

Which led Newbery to quite rightly highlight:

[...] Lord Leveson does not need to form his own expert scientific judgement in order to determine whether there are problems in the way that climate change is reported, any more than Mr Justice Burton in the High Court needed any scientific expertise of his own to determine that Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth’ was alarmist and misleading. Secondly, his Lordship seems not to have considered the problem of distinguishing what is fact and what is opinion in climate change when nearly everyone claims that their opinions, or speculations, are facts.

However, he does recommend that readers should look at evidence published on the website. When one sees that he cites the Welcome Trust, Sense about Science, Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre and the UK Drug Policy Commission, but makes no mention of our submission, that rather undercuts his earlier claim that there is no such thing, in his eyes, as second-class evidence.

Much further on, his lordship grapples, very briefly, with the concerns of various defenders of the scientific orthodoxy about ‘false balance’. They argue that,if both minority and majority views in a scientific discourse are reported – for the sake of balance – then this is unfair to the majority who, of course, must be right. Wisely he smartly moves on to other things [...] [emphasis added -hro]

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Leveson did not actually write these sections of his report. But all paragraphs were written in his name; consequently he bears responsibility for such glaring errors of omission and commission.

So what does all this have to do with evidence of bias and blindingly obvious lack of impartiality on the part of the CBC?! I’m so glad you asked! I have commented in the past (see here, here and here for some recent examples) on their shortcomings.

In order to keep my blood pressure at a healthy level, I rarely listen to or watch CBC programming these days. Others, however, are more resilient and conscientious than I! One such person is Sherri Lange, the CEO of NA-PAW, North American Platform Against Wind Power.

Lange has provided an excellent analysis of an October CBC presentation demonstrating the extent to which the powers that be seem to have been unduly influenced by the lobbying and “education” efforts of unabashedly green NGOs – such as those that have succeeded in the “conversion” of the BBC to their evangelical “cause”.

As Lange’s article today on the excellent free market energy blog, MasterResource.org, notes:

Wind Propaganda by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Orwellian greenwashing calls for correction)

Recently the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) pretended to take on the endless debate around the topic most people know little about – the health problems created by industrial wind turbines. The results were quite disappointing.

The Sunday, October 21st program (two segments) skated around the issues like Barbara Ann Scott.
[...]
The dubiously reverential tone of the interviewer, Karin Wells, permeated this piece of wind turbine propaganda. So why did this ignite us so? After all we are used to the green propaganda machine.

In its heyday CBC was a bastion of objectivity. However this show revealed nothing but wind apologetics. The absurdities were thick and one-sided without a single thread of verity.
[...]
For CBC to launch this Sunday Edition without having done the basic research leaves us with the sad bitter taste of “propaganda” hanging in the air. The ongoing factual record calls for a redo.
[...]
CBC Ombudsman Kirk LaPointe studied the complaints [about the program] and stated: “The complainants felt that a CBC Radio program October 21, 2012, on Wind Turbines was unfair and lacked balance. I did not find a violation of CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices.”

LaPointe did not offer an explanation as to why growing, robust research about the health problems of wind turbines (such as in Europe) did not apply to Canada. (NOTE: the dialogue between the Ombudsman’s office and listeners appears far from over.)
[...]

There’s a very familiar pattern forming here, folks. And, the view from here is that whatever else this pattern might reveal, it is far, far away from broadcasting that one could even remotely consider as “impartial” or deserving of “public trust”.

Of coffee beans and CBC climate hypochondriacs

Canada’s “national” broadcaster, the CBC continues to practice its longstanding habit of controlling the climate message. There’s an article (with no byline, so it was probably churned from a press release) in their “Technology & Science” section, dated today, which begins:

Coffee beans in danger of extinction

Climate change could kill off prized Arabica plants by 2080

A cup of morning coffee could be much harder to find, and much more expensive, before the century is out thanks to climate change and the possible extinction of wild Arabica beans.

That’s the warning behind a new study by U.K. and Ethiopian researchers who say the beans that go into 70 per cent of the world’s coffee could be wiped out by 2080.

Researchers at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew and the Environment and Coffee Forest Forum in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia looked at how climate change might make some land unsuitable for Arabica plants, which are highly vulnerable to temperature change and other dangers including pests and disease.

[and concludes:]

The study goes on to note that its results are “conservative” because it did not take into account the large-scale deforestation of the Arabica-suitable highland forests of Ethiopia and South Sudan.

“The models assume intact natural vegetation, whereas the highland forests of Ethiopia and South Sudan are highly fragmented due to deforestation,” the researchers wrote. Pests, disease and other factors were also not considered.

The authors of the report say certain “core sites” capable of yielding Arabica until at least 2080 should be set aside for conservation. [emphasis added -hro]

Of course, there’s no link from the article to the actual paper, the abstract of which begins:

Precise modelling of the influence of climate change on Arabica coffee is limited; there are no data available for indigenous populations of this species. In this study we model the present and future predicted distribution of indigenous Arabica, and identify priorities in order to facilitate appropriate decision making for conservation, monitoring and future research. Using distribution data we perform bioclimatic modelling and examine future distribution with the HadCM3 climate model for three emission scenarios (A1B, A2A, B2A) over three time intervals (2020, 2050, 2080). The models show a profoundly negative influence on indigenous Arabica. [emphasis added -hro]

So the authors have no data, but they have computers to play with. And we should all be duly alarmed by the prospect of possible coffee deprivation several decades down the road. I wonder if it has occurred to the authors that there are agricultural scientists who’ve been very successful at developing all kinds of produce that is resistant to the perils of nature, should any actual data ever materialize which indicates that their greatest fears are likely to be realized!

Amazing. Simply amazing.

A tale of two “converts”: Richard Muller & Patrick Moore

There’s a program I like to listen to on CBC Radio on Sunday mornings. It’s called The Sunday Edition which most of the year is hosted by Michael Enright. During the summers there are guest hosts; this week the host was Kevin Sylvester. As I’ve mentioned in the past, the CBC is dedicated to the promulgation of all the alarmist memes, and rarely does any truly investigative reporting on this issue.

So I suppose I should not have been surprised when the first item on today’s edition was heralded as:

Global Warming

Climate change is for real. Now, that won’t be news to most of you … everyone from Al Gore to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate, the IPCC, has been trumpeting that from the mountaintops for years.

But when Richard Muller says it, people tend to sit up and take notice. That’s because up until he made that statement, Professor Muller had been one of the leading voices in the climate change skeptics camp. He’s a professor of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley, and runs the Berkeley Earth Science Temperature Project. His research is funded by the Charles Koch Foundation, an arm of the billionaire oil industrialists Charles and David Koch. [emphasis added -hro]

Listening to this half-hour interview, Muller seemed to be recycling portions of a recent hour-long interview he gave on Climate One Clearly no one at the CBC had done any “homework” on Muller – beyond reading his latest science-by-press-release Op Ed in the N.Y. Times.

[UPDATE 10/3/2012 06:36 PM PDT: Alex Cull has transcribed the Climate One interview. It is a fascinating read!]

I would have thought that the first thing Muller would have done would be to correct the two items I have bolded in the above CBC intro. On second thoughts, the first would have been somewhat difficult for him since recycled born-again-non-skeptic is his most recent reinvention of himself, as he wrote in the NYT Op Ed:

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases. [emphasis added -hro]

But surely if the man possessed even an ounce of modesty and humility, he would not have let “one of the leading voices in the climate skeptic camp” remain unchallenged – and uncorrected. Surely he would have noted that the Koch brothers were merely one of several funders of BEST:

First Phase

The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20,000)
William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000)
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)
The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)

We also received funding from a number of private individuals, totaling $14,500 as of June 2011.

Second Phase

William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000)
The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)
Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)

Needless to say, Muller – who strikes me as being very much a do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do kind of guy – corrected neither. Further examples of his, well, double-standards can be found in his earlier attempts to grab the spotlight. As I had noted previously, in December 2003, Muller had declared:

It was unfortunate that many scientists endorsed the hockey stick before it could be subjected to the tedious review of time. Ironically, it appears that these scientists skipped the vetting precisely because the results were so important.

[and]

In most fields of science, researchers who express the most self-doubt and who understate their conclusions are the ones that are most respected. Scientists regard with disdain those who play their conclusions to the press. [emphasis added -hro]

Has Muller’s work been “subjected to the tedious review of time”? Hell, it hasn’t even passed peer-review yet, let alone the “tedious review of time”! And he doesn’t seem to have any qualms whatsoever about “playing [his] conclusions to the press” – not to mention misrepresenting those of others (but that’s another story!) Nor does he mention that at least one of the five BEST papers was actually rejected by the journal to which it had been submitted.

Back in October 2011, Muller was mischaracterizing the skeptic position in a very simplistic and disrespectful way. This time around, contrary to his advice that scientists should “respect” the public, not only does he fail to articulate the skeptic position, he muddies the waters further by suggesting that Al Gore and other extreme alarmists are “deniers” – because they go beyond the conclusions of the IPCC.

Will I buy a copy of Muller’s latest book (he seems to be killing two PR birds with one stone with his latest media blitz)? Based on what I’ve heard from him about Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines so far, it’s not very likely to reach the the top of my must read list in the near or distant future.

I have heard little that would suggest that his conclusions in this book – bolstered by BEST’s not yet “subjected to the tedious review of time” findings – are more than a reworking of views he has held since the early 2000′s. Including his 2009 emphasis on China being the main problem, and his December 2003:

Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.

In contrast to the “converted” skeptic-who-never-was, consider the case of Dr. Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist whose work the CBC in its infinite wisdom chooses to ignore.

Unlike Muller and his “conversions” of PR convenience, Moore really did undergo a “conversion”. He was a co-founder of the original Greenpeace. His Facebook page notes:

Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace and Chair and Chief Scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. in Vancouver, Canada. His latest book is “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”

Like Muller, Moore has a consultancy, as an “advisor to industry and government” which he founded in 1991: Greenspirit. You can get a strong sense of the man – and the consistency of his thoughtful positions from his long history of articles that (IMHO) deserve circulation at least as wide as (if not wider than) those of Muller. Most recently, he was interviewed by Joseph F. Cotto in a series of two articles (part 1, part 2) in the Washington Times. Some excerpts (my emphases added -hro):

Cotto: Why do you think that contemporary environmentalists have become more hardline in their views?

Dr. Moore: By around the mid-1980s, when I left Greenpeace, the public had accepted most of the reasonable things we had been fighting for: stop the bomb, save the whales, stop toxic waste dumping into the earth, water, and air. Some, like myself, realized the job of creating mass awareness of the importance of the environment had been accomplished and it was time to move on from confrontation to sustainable development, seeking solutions. But others seemed bent on lifelong confrontation, “up against the man” “smash capitalism”, “join the world-wide struggle against globalization” (I actually saw this on a cardboard sign at a demo).

In order to remain confrontational as society adopted all the reasonable demands, it was necessary for these anti-establishment lifers to adopt ever more extreme positions, eventually abandoning science and logic altogether in zero-tolerance policies. In addition, with the ending of the Peace Movement, which was decidedly left-wing politically and essentially anti-American, many peaceniks moved into the environmental movement brining their far-left agendas with them. This was very unfortunate as environmentalism by nature should be down the middle politically. Nature is not left or right and there are good ideas on both sides of the political spectrum, in particular market-based policies on the right and environmental regulations on the left. A balance of these two approaches would be optimum.

The “green” movement has not only become more hard line, they have also become irrational and fanatical.

Cotto: In the past, you have said that human activity is not the only cause for climate change. What do you believe is the greatest contributing factor?

Dr. Moore: First, we don’t know precisely how the many factors affecting climate contribute and interact in producing the earth’s climate at any given time. The cause of the onset of Ice-Ages, one of which we are presently experiencing, is a puzzle we don’t fully understand. I explain in my presentations that as a scientist who is fully qualified to understand climate change, I seem dumber than the people who say they “know” the answers because I do not profess to know the future, especially of something so complicated as the global climate.

Seems to me that whether or not Moore is familiar with Muller’s “advice”:

In most fields of science, researchers who express the most self-doubt and who understate their conclusions are the ones that are most respected. Scientists regard with disdain those who play their conclusions to the press.

Moore understands – and governs himself by – the principles involved. An interesting excerpt from part 2:

Cotto: In 1977, you were elected the president of the Greenpeace Foundation. Less than ten years later, however, you left the organization. Why did you leave Greenpeace? Do you believe that it currently does beneficial work for the environment?

Dr. Moore: I left Greenpeace because I found myself, after 15 years in the leadership, the only director of six directors of Greenpeace International with any formal science education. I have an Honors BSc in biology and forest biology, a PhD in ecology during which I was the recipient of a Ford Foundation Fellowship, an honorary doctorate of science (North Carolina State), the Einstein Society’s Award for Nuclear Science and History, and have over 40 years experience in all aspects of the environmental movement.

Yet at the time one of my fellow director’s said “Oh Pat, we’re all ecologists”. They began to adopt policies, on what were by this time quite complex issues of chemistry and biology, that I could not support with my knowledge of science. The most prominent of these was a policy to “ban chlorine worldwide” (they now publicly deny this even though the media archives provide extensive proof). I tried to convince them that a more nuanced approach to the 11th most common element in the earth’s crust was probably wiser than calling for an outright ban. Especially seeing there is no denying that chlorine is the most important of all the elements for public health and medicine. Adding chlorine to drinking water is the biggest advance in the history of public health, and chlorine chemistry is involved in a majority of our synthetic pharmaceuticals.

So I was forced to leave and glad I did (but sad I had to) because I saw the writing on the wall. Since I left, Greenpeace has adopted many positions, including hanging on to the mistake of being against nuclear energy, that I do not agree with from an environmental perspective. The only issue I have changed my opinion on since leaving GP is nuclear energy. [...]

Cotto: Since leaving Greenpeace, you have continued your environmental activism. How has this come along? Is it easier to accomplish your goals now than it was during your years with Greenpeace?

Dr. Moore: I have said many times that the task of successfully incorporating environmental values into the economic and social fabric of civilization is far moe difficult than popularizing those values in the first place. Sustainable development, or sustainability, requires finding solutions for environmental issue that do not compromise our ability to feed ourselves, provide the energy required for transport, industry, and infrastructure, and obtain the materials (minerals and wood) to build the infrastructure.

The term “sustainable development” did not come into popular usage until 1987 with the publication of the UNCED book “Our Common Future”. It will take 100 years or more to fully implement this idea. In comparison the highlighting of problems such as the threat of nuclear war and the potential extinction of whales was relatively easy. That said I believe there has been tremendous progress towards sustainability: sustainable forestry, ecosystem restoration (reclamation) of mining sites, protection of wild lands, especially wetlands but also all types of ecosystems, drastic reduction in toxic discharge, at least in the developed countries and as other countries develop they will follow suit, a new surge of nuclear energy with 65 plants under construction today and 100s more planned.

My work with Greenspirit Strategies in helping develop sustainability policies for industry and government has contributed to this progress.

U.K. readers who are familiar with Bob Ward’s antics during the course of his tenure with the Royal Society will be pleased to see the recently added 2006 letter I found from Moore in the archives of news releases on the Greenspirit Strategies blog (my emphasis added -hro):

September 21, 2006

Dear Mr. Bob Ward,

I am in receipt of a copy of your letter to ExxonMobil in which you accuse them of misleading the public on the science of climate change.

I would be pleased to have your qualifications in science and to know how you have decided the question of human causation of global warming has been conclusively determined.

While I may agree with certain statements made by the IPCC, surely you and the Royal Society would respect my right to disagree with other statements or at least to call them into question.

You cite the IPCC as the authority yet surely you are aware that science does not work by committee or by “consensus.”

Certainly the Royal Society would agree there is no scientific proof of causation between the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent global warming trend, a trend that has been evident for about 500 years, long before human-caused increase in CO2 was evident.

I am sure the Royal Society is aware of the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. It is clear the contention that human-induced CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels in the global atmosphere are the cause of the present global warming trend is an hypothesis that has not yet been elevated to the level of a proven theory. Causation has not been demonstrated in any conclusive way.

This is no doubt why the authors of the IPCC report use the word “likely” in their concluding statement “most of the global warming over the past 50 years is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases.”

Even more important, it is a fundamental precept in science that rigorous objection to “consensus” be encouraged in order to avoid “politically correct” conclusions that stifle dissent and intellectual exploration.

I say shame on the Royal Society—one of the world’s top science bodies—for allowing such a political “blame” letter to be sent. The correspondence smacks of a repressive and anti-intellectual attitude that can only harm our efforts to understand the true nature of climate change, both non-human and human in origin.

Please retract this letter and instead encourage debate and dialogue on this most important subject for the future of humankind and the environment

Sincerely,

Patrick Moore, PhD

I have added Moore’s Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist to my must read list. And I regret that I somehow missed the three excerpts that were featured in the National Post last March. Moore has copies of these (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) on his Greenspirit site.

So, Muller or Moore. Who (OK, whom, if you prefer!) will you trust – and whose book will you add to your “must read” list, eh?!

More on BC’s carbon tax “review”

A few days ago, I had commented on a recent CBC news item announcing that the government of British Columbia was embarking on a “review” of BC’s Carbon Tax. The CBC’s record of providing useful links to back up its stories is far from sterling – and at the time of my original post, I was unable to find such a link. However, I am now able to remedy this:

British Columbians now have the opportunity to make written submissions to the Minister of Finance from July 1, 2012 – August 31, 2012.

The Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier is Kevin Falcon. Reader Morley Sutter has made a submission, which he has kindly permitted me to publish here. I have taken the liberty of slightly reformatting for ease of blog-reading.

**************

From: Morley C. Sutter [mailto:xxxxxx]
Sent: July-01-12 7:58 AM
To: ‘kevin.falcon.mla@xxxxx’
Subject: Carbon Tax

Dear Sir:

The Carbon Tax should be scrapped. It ostensibly was introduced based on two premises: the belief that increasing CO₂ in the atmosphere produces dangerous man-made global warming and the belief that we should reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (particularly oil produced by OPEC). The first premise is false; the second has been mitigated by the North American use of frakking to increase the availability of both oil and natural gas. The Carbon Tax is therefore both unnecessary and useless except as a revenue-earner for the Government. It is simply a cost to the populace.

There is little doubt that the average surface air temperature has increased – approximately 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850 or 0.05 degrees per decade but the cause of this is unknown. CO₂ also has increased over that period so there is a rough correlation between the rise in CO₂ concentrations and temperature.

But correlation between two events never proves that one causes the other. The lack of correlation between two events indicates that they are causally unrelated.

The graph shown below shows the lack of correlation between atmospheric CO₂ and temperature.

Temperature records versus atmospheric CO₂

From the Norwegian blog http://www.climate4you.com

Superimposed plot of five different global monthly temperature estimates shown individually elsewhere. As the base period differs for these estimates, they have all been normalised by comparing to the average of their initial 120 months (10 years) from January 1979 to December 1988. Click here to go to the associated comparison of these five temperature records.

The heavy black line represents the simple running 37 month (c. 3 year) mean of the average of all temperature estimates (before 1979 only the three surface records). The blue graph shows the amount of atmospheric CO₂ (Mauna Loa station, Hawaii, see also above). The heavy blue line represents the simple running 37 month (c. 3 year) mean of the monthly CO₂-values.

The scale for atmospheric CO₂ (right) is adjusted to display the CO₂-graph roughly parallel to the 1975-2000 temperature increase. For the first two decades in the 21st century a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios according to the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers (p.7 and Fig.SPM.5). Last month shown: May 2012. Last diagram update: 29 June 2012.

It is from the Norwegian blog “Climate4you” accessible at the following URL: http://www.climate4you.com/.

As you can see, there has been no significant warming since the year 2000. How can CO₂ be the driver of temperature when the CO₂ concentration rises without an accompanying temperature rise?

Yours truly,

Morley C. Sutter, MD, PhD.

**************

A related footnote … in a subsequent story, apart from dutifully quoting a spokesman for the Suzuki Foundation (who, of course, contends that this tax is the greatest thing since sliced bread), the CBC chose to “balance” this view with that of Mark Jaccard:

a professor of environmental economics at Simon Fraser University, [who] believes it will take 20 years before the province can speculate on the success or failure of the tax.

“It would be shocking if a carbon tax had made a difference in a couple of years and it hasn’t,” he said.

It could be that Jaccard was attempting to atone for his silly antics earlier this year – not to mention his (previously) undisclosed conflict of interest, as noted by Donna Laframboise.

Hmmm … I wonder if Jaccard and his co-author Nic Rivers would care to debate the “findings” of Stewart Elgie’s latest fiefdom, regarding BC’s Carbon Tax. As I had noted, the Globe and Mail had dutifully reported (inter alia):

But in its report on the levy, Sustainable Prosperity says it has led to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are linked to climate change, but has had no negative impact on economic growth, as some critics feared.

Rivers, a co-author of Jaccard’s 2007 book – and then one of Jaccard’s grad students – provided “comment and review” on Elgie’s “report”, and is now evidently at the University of Ottawa and is also a member of Elgie’s “Research Network Committee” where he serves as “Co-Chair, Low Carbon Economy”.

Or perhaps Jaccard is merely a little behind on the apparent shifting of the sands of the environmental-activist paradigm from amorphous “climate change” – on the heels of Rio+20 at which it was barely mentioned – to the more conveniently encompassing (but equally ill-defined) “sustainable development”?!

Prophets of doom forecasting gloom … while Gleick re-enters his room

Oh, well … another day, another decision by the CBC to engage in the practice of mediocre reporting characterized by the likes of the U.K. Guardian‘s Suzanne Goldenberg: that of making claims without providing a link to their alleged source, so that the reader may verify the validity of the reporter’s (misbegotten?!) perceptions and/or willful misperceptions.

In an article today, the CBC’s Kazi Stastna reports:

World’s environmental outlook grim, UN warns

Little progress made on goals set by nations

Two weeks before the start of a global conference on sustainable development in Rio de Janiero, the United Nations is warning that progress has stalled on key environmental goals the world’s nations have set for themselves, like tackling climate change, combating desertification and protecting biodiversity.

“The world continues to speed down an unsustainable path despite over 500 internationally agreed goals and objectives to support the sustainable management of the environment and improve human well-being,” the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) said when it released its Global Environmental Outlook Wednesday.

[...]

Once again, the CBC chooses to pepper its article with links, but none to the apparent source of the relevant details from which their reporter appears to have churned the quotes.

The UNEP, of course, has been a prime promulgator (if not creator) of scary stories since 1972; so I would expect no less of any report issued under their auspices – or that of any of the ever-increasing multitude of acronymic offspring they have spawned.

For the record, the UNEP’s headline, subhead and opening paragraphs:

World Remains on Unsustainable Track Despite Hundreds of Internationally Agreed Goals and Objectives

Ambitious Set of Sustainability Targets Can be Met, But Only with Renewed Commitment and Rapid Scaling-Up of Successful Policies

Rio, 6 June 2012 – The world continues to speed down an unsustainable path despite over 500 internationally agreed goals and objectives to support the sustainable management of the environment and improve human wellbeing, according to a new and wide-ranging assessment coordinated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

The fifth edition of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-5), launched on the eve of the Rio+20 Summit, assessed 90 of the most-important environmental goals and objectives and found that significant progress had only been made in four.

But speaking of the UNEP and the GEO … have you ever noticed that there is virtually no report issued under its auspices which it has not described as the “most authoritative”? This one is no exception. From the “Notes to Editors” of this particular press release:

Global Environment Outlook (GEO-5) is the most authoritative assessment of the state, trends and outlook of the global environment. The report was produced over three years in a process that involved more than six hundred experts worldwide, who collated and analyzed data from every continent to build up a detailed picture of the world’s wellbeing.

It’s almost as if the UNEP’s PR writer works with a fill-in-the-blanks one-size-fits-all-reports template! And for this, I’m sure s/he gets paid big bucks (which come from our pockets!). Oh, wait a minute … a little further down in this brief section I find:

For more information, please contact:

In Brazil:

Nick Nuttall, Spokesperson and Acting Director, UNEP Division of Communication and Public Information [contact details -hro]

Hmmm … Nick Nutall … now that name rings a very familiar bell! Oh, yes, I remember now! I’ve actually had some correspondence with him. Cheerful chap (particularly considering that he’s so closely aligned with an organization whose core business is the spreading of doom and gloom); but, sad to say, not well-informed – or informative. So good luck with getting “more information” from Nutall. Your chances of success are about as likely as Steve McIntyre’s recent efforts to obtain data from Joelle Gergis regarding her latest and greatest contribution to the annals of “climate science”.

But I digress … back to the Guardian‘s Goldenberg and her contributions to the world of “informed” reporting. Readers might recall that back in February, Goldenberg was one of the first off the mark to report as “fact” that which she had not – in fact – fact-checked. She seems to be an ardent fan and supporter of the notorious Peter Gleick (whose previous claim to fame was that of “reviewing” a book which he clearly had not read).

Goldenberg’s most recent venture into the realm of non-fact-checked “reporting” occurred last month when she published a column announcing the rehabilitation of Gleick while cleverly recyling his most serious unsubstantiated self-exculpatory myths and memes.

Turns out that Goldenberg’s May 21 “now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t, now-you-do” article – as documented by Anthony Watts at WUWT – was remarkably prescient. Although definitely written well before its time, as Gleick’s Pacific Institute confirmed announced in a press release today:

June 6 , 2012

PACIFIC INSTITUTE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STATEMENT

The Pacific Institute is pleased to welcome Dr. Peter Gleick back to his position as president of the Institute. An independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute. This independent investigation has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way.
[...]

There was no mention whatsoever in this press release of any findings pertaining to the rather crucial aspect of Gleick’s “confession” – his involvement in the promulgation of an obviously faked “memo”. But perhaps in their wisdom (or that of their “in memoriam” Advisory Board member, the long departed bully and smear-artist par excellence, Stephen Schneider [h/t Donna Laframboise]), they determined that there was no need for them to do so: Goldenberg had very conveniently muddied the waters – and already did it for them on May 21!

Come to think of it … for all we know, Goldenberg may have taken a leaf out of Neil Wallis‘ book and/or might have been the “independent outside … counsel” on whose “report” the Institute decided to rely.

Certainly the Pacific Institute’s “press contact” was no more forthcoming (or informative!) than the UNEP’s Nick Nutall, as Anthony Watts quickly discovered shortly after he wrote to ask the following questions:

1. What organization, law firm, or group conducted the investigation?

2. Why has that investigation not been made public?

The response from the designated “Press Room Contact”:

It was conducted by an independent professional investigation firm. The independent review conducted by outside counsel on behalf of the Pacific Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick stated publicly and has further confirmed and the Pacific Institute is satisfied that none of its staff knew of or was involved in any way. It will not be released because it is a confidential personnel matter. [emphasis added -hro]

How very, well, convenient, eh?! Knowing that Gleick had absolutely no compunctions about demanding – and subsequently illicitly acquiring and releasing – the confidential material (including “personnel matters”) of Heartland, am I the only one who sees the utter brazen hypocrisy of this rationalization by Gleick and his Institute?! Talk about chutzpah … Gleick surely deserves some kind of “award” for this blatant subversion of …ethics.

Maybe its time to call in the used car salesmen – in order to inject a note (however feint) of integrity into the fields of “climate science”, environmental advocacy and “reporting”.

Tall tales from the “dark” side

In yet another publicity stunt (given far more prominence than it deserves, as might be expected from the enviro-activist cheering CBC), a number of oh-so-concerned environmental advocacy groups and “think tanks” decided to hold a day of website darkness in protest (of course) against provisions of the Canadian government’s proposed budget bill.

From CBC News Online – British Columbia Morning Digest – 2012-06-04

The latest headline (as of this writing) on the CBC site: “Website blackout in free speech fight against budget bill”. The subhead (in much smaller print) reads: “10 Conservative ministers hold events to tell ‘the other side of the story’”

A larger version of the above image appears appears on the CBC page. And in case you’re wondering who “Tom Mulcair” might be … Mulcair is the recently elected (and favoured by IPCC “expert” Andrew Weaver) Leader of the Official Opposition in the Canadian parliament.

The enviro-activists have been whining (quite loudly!) because the government has been checking up on some of these so-called “non-profit” groups – such as the non-entity known as “Forest Ethics Canada” – their activities and funding sources, such as Tides Canada, as I wrote in April.

As Terence Corcoran notes in concluding a recent article:

When Mulcair took his anti-oil sands fog machine to Alberta on Thursday, he arrived with and left behind a slick leftist take on economic policy that could keep Canadians and even Albertans slip-sliding for some time. He withheld his strongest language, did not call it “dirty oil,” but he did call the oil sands “massive on a planetary scale.” The NDP leader’s story line — Dutch disease, polluter pay, regional disparities, environmental degradation, currency woes, overheated economy — is in effect a dark and divisive economic perspective.

The fuzzy code words are “sustainable development,” the hocus-pocus bit of subversive United Nations jargon that has become the new intellectual launch pad for the next generation of green activism — and new ground in the old leftist wars.

It is new ground in the sense that activists have run out of momentum on their last campaign. Global warming failed. Conspicuously downgraded in the new Pembina report is climate change and carbon emissions. Over 68 pages, climate and carbon get a few passing references toward the end — a sure sign it is getting tough to rattle Canadians over a climate-warming scare that has run out of power, sputtering from a lack of actual warming and collapsing in the face of economic reality.

Replacing the climate issue as the main driver of government interventionism is a new collection of old ideas, repackaged, revamped and reshaped to make them seem fresh. Mr. Mulcair and Pembina have them nailed down: regional division, Dutch disease, auto workers against oil workers, business against the people, oil sands against the environment.

We saw this “launch pad” being built quite some time ago, as I have noted in several posts since October, 2010.

It is worth noting that in their “SUMMARY OF THE THIRD ROUND OF UNCSD INFORMAL INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS – 29 MAY – 2 JUNE 2012″, the IISD reports:

[...] Delegates resumed consideration of the draft outcome document for Rio+20, which was originally developed by the Co-Chairs and Bureau of the UNCSD Preparatory Committee (PrepCom).

Titled “The Future We Want” and 19 pages in length, the original document was released on 10 January 2012 [see my post here and here for details -hro]. This version of the draft incorporated input received by the UNCSD Secretariat from member states and other stakeholders, as well as comments offered during the Second Intersessional Meeting of the UNCSD PrepCom in December 2011. Following its release, the zero draft was discussed at meetings held at UN Headquarters in January and March, when delegates proposed numerous amendments, and it expanded to over 200 pages in length.

[...]

[...] UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon addressed participants and emphasized that the stakes at this final negotiation before Rio+20 are very high and issues can no longer remain unresolved in the text. He said the Rio+20 outcome should, inter alia, identify: a process to define SDGs; a new institutional framework; and mechanisms that stimulate economies to create decent jobs, provide social protection, and support a healthy environment. He called on negotiators to work with the CST and streamline it further in order to make Rio+20 a resounding success.

Things didn’t go quite the way Ban Ki-moon wanted. But there is some evidence that he’s definitely shifted gears on the “greatest threat to the future of our planet” front. Take a close look at this picture (captured from his home page)

What’s missing from this picture, folks?!

Here are some excerpts from some recent speeches (all emphases are mine -hro):

April 23, 2012

Remarks to High Level Delegation of Mayors and Regional Authorities

[...]
Our struggle for global sustainability will be won or lost in cities.

As mayors and associations of local and regional authorities, your support has never been more crucial to delivering practical results that will defeat poverty, protect the natural environment and improve disaster risk reduction.

By prioritizing sustainable urbanization within a broader development framework, many critical development challenges can be addressed in tandem.

Energy, water, food, biodiversity, climate change adaptation, exposure to natural hazards, consumption and production patterns, social protection floors and jobs, especially for young people — these are all closely linked. Our challenge is to connect the dots, so that advances on one can generate progress on others.

It is vitally important that this approach be recognized and endorsed at Rio+20.
[...]
We need an outcome from Rio+20 that is thus both practical and transformational.

We need to move beyond gross domestic product as our main measure of progress, and fashion a sustainable development index that puts people first.

We expect the conference to agree on the need to launch a process to elaborate Sustainable Development Goals that build on the Millennium Development Goals.

We are also looking to Rio to reinforce a set of building blocks for sustainability, including through support for an Oceans Compact and for my Sustainable Energy for All initiative.

Our goal is a fundamental ‘re-set’ of the global development agenda.

Hard but necessary choices lie ahead. Cities have a central role to play in making this paradigm shift a reality.

In the spirit of UN-Habitat’s “I’m a City Changer” campaign, I encourage you all to advocate for the importance of sound national urban strategies, balanced regional development policies, and strengthened urban economic and legal frameworks.

Sustainable cities are crucial to our future well-being.

Hmmm … “climate change adaptation”, eh? And not even a hint of the dreaded CO₂ – or even greenhouse gas – emissions. Fancy that!

Yet at another “High Level” meeting, not too long ago …he said:

December 6, 2011

Remarks to High Level Segment of UN Framework Convention Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP17
[...]
And it may be true, as many say: the ultimate goal of a comprehensive and binding climate change agreement may be beyond our reach – for now.

Yet let me emphasize: none of these uncertainties should prevent us from making real progress here in Durban
[...]

It would be difficult to overstate the gravity of this moment.

Without exaggeration, we can say: the future of our planet is at stake.

People’s lives, the health of global economy, the very survival of some nations.

The science is clear.

The World Meteorological Organisation has reported that carbon emissions are at their highest in history and rising.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us, unequivocally, that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by half by 2050 – if we are to keep the rise in global temperatures to 2 degrees since pre-industrial times.

According to the International Energy Agency, we are nearing the “point of no return,” and we must pull back from the abyss.

You are the people who can bring us from the edge.

[He then recycles all the familiar scary stories which he follows with a call for cash:]

On short-term, fast-track financing, $30 billion dollars has been pledged, and almost all of it has been identified in national budgets.

However, recipient countries want to see greater transparency in how the funds are allocated and disbursed.

The UNFCCC Secretariat has created a tool to do this.

We also need prompt delivery of these funds to where they are most needed.

On longer-term financing, we need to mobilize $100 billion per annum by 2020 from governmental, private sector and innovative new sources.

[Then he sings a chorus from the traditional hymn of praise:]

In the absence of a global binding climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol is the closest we have.

While Kyoto alone will not solve today’s climate problem, it is a foundation to build on, with important institutions.

It provides the framework that markets sorely need.

Carbon pricing, carbon-trading depend on a rules-based system.

I’m not sure if a “source” is different from a “mechanism” in UN-speak; but all previous “sources” of $$ have been via “mechanisms”. So perhaps there are some new “mechanisms” in the works that will fill the bill for “innovative new sources”! But isn’t it fascinating that it is the recipients’ demand for “greater transparency” in the allocation and disbursement of funds that he’s chosen to highlight! How about some concern for the donors’ demands, or don’t they count?!

But whatever the cash case of the hour might be, the UN Secretary-General has certainly made a “paradigm shift” between December and May! On May 23, he had an op ed in the NYT. It was entitled, “The Future We Want”. According to the text on the UN site, if you were to do a search for “climate” or “threat” you would find zilch. But you will find:

Sustainable development = 3
Sustainable energy = 2
Sustainable growth = 1
Sustainability = 1

This particular article concludes:

Rio+20 should issue a clarion call to action: waste not. Mother Earth has been kind to us. Let humanity reciprocate by respecting her natural boundaries. At Rio, governments should call for smarter use of resources. Our oceans must be protected. So must our water, air and forests. Our cities must be made more liveable — places we inhabit in greater harmony with nature.

At Rio+20, I will call on governments, business and other coalitions to advance on my own Sustainable Energy for All initiative. The goal: universal access to sustainable energy, a doubling of energy efficiency and a doubling of the use of renewable sources of energy by 2030.

Because so many of today’s challenges are global, they demand a global response — collective power exercised in powerful partnership. Now is not the moment for narrow squabbling. This is a moment for world leaders and their people to unite in common purpose around a shared vision of our common future — the future we want.

Strangely enough, there’s also no mention of the “green economy” in this May 23 article. Perhaps that’s why there’s so much blue in the image I captured above!

Mind you it is probably more likely that the reason he didn’t mention it is that he is fully aware that for all his High Level Panels and Gaia knows how many commissions, committees, working groups etc. – not the least of which is the recently concluded (additional) five-day “informal informal consultations” on the Rio+20 “outcome document” (in the deliberations of which one finds 32 mentions of “green economy” along with eight instances of “Agenda 21″) – the phrase has not yet been defined!

Yet on May 17, 2012 Ban Ki-moon urged students to “make some noise”:

“The truth is I am disappointed with the negotiations. They are not moving fast enough. That is why I need you,” Mr. Ban told students attending the 13th Annual Global Classrooms International High School Model UN Conference, taking place at in the General Assembly Hall at UN Headquarters in New York, on Thursday evening. “When I say make some noise, I mean raise your voices. Demand real action. Shame those governments into doing more.”

Just what the world needs … more rabble-rousers! Speaking of which … one of the interesting tidbits I found in conclusion the IISD’s report of the May 29-June 2 “consultations” was as follows:

As a civil society observer noted, the preparatory process should not be seen in too pessimistic a light, as centering on a single issue—the outcome document. Negotiating the road to Rio has already had positive repercussions around the world: it has brought sustainable development into sharper focus, and spawned citizens’ groups with a renewed desire to sway government negotiations (interestingly, NGO representatives were seen sitting in on informal contact groups without objections raised from delegates). The activists of “Occupy Rio+20” are a sign that the bleak world economic situation has actually promoted sustainable development awareness, and has put people’s well-being, socioeconomic equity and environmental health in a strong public spotlight. [emphasis added -hro]

I wonder how many of those “spawned citizens’ groups” have been “initiatives” of the likes of the US Tides Foundation – or, closer to my home, Tides Canada?

But speaking of these members of “civil society” – aka Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) – as I have previously noted such “accredited” groups are granted observer status at whatever UN meetings their little hearts desire, and they are also permitted to “make statements”. Simon Hoiberg Olsen of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies made a statement on behalf of the “NGO Major Group”. Here are some excerpts:

NGO Statement June 1 2012 – IFSD [Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development]

2.We very much agree with the Children and Youth position on the High Commissioner for Future Generations. [See update below -hro]

3.We support the upgrading of UNEP into a specialized agency for our environment, with universal membership and based in Nairobi – either as outcome, or as a result of a process set in motion in Rio.

4. In the future, we think consultations with civil society on development of a system-wide strategy for the environment is vital. We propose that relevant civil society representatives become fully involved in UNEP consultations, particularly in issues of their core interest. In the long term we propose to let the Major Group system evolve into an expert system similar to that of the ILO, and therefore thank EU for bringing up para82 Sub J on participation, although if met with skepticism alternative formulations could be useful as well.

With the UN Secretary-General running around urging students to “make some noise” and “shame … governments into doing more”, I suppose it’s not surprising that the “fade to black” enviro-activists mistakenly think that the actions of the Canadian government should only be in accordance with what they deem to be appropriate.

But in their rush to play martyr with ludicrous claims to the effect that they are being “intimidated” and their voices “silenced”, they – along with their celebrity, media and political allies – seem to have conveniently forgotten that they do not speak for … the non-rabble-rousing majority.

This one-day “black-out” did nothing to reduce their dreaded “carbon footprint”, so I really question their sincerity. If they were truly dedicated to their cause, they would have taken down their websites and given up their computers long ago, instead of acting like, well … delinquent teenagers. Wouldn’t they?!

UPDATE – 06/5/2012: Unless I am misreading the ISSD’s analysis, it would appear that – at least for now – common sense has prevailed regarding the proposal for a “High Commissioner for Future Generations”. The summary notes:

Some delegations remained skeptical of proposals like the creation of a post of a high representative for future generations, which one delegate said had an unclear mandate. A number of observers expect that these bargaining chips will be quickly traded in the final negotiations.

Donna Laframboise has some hard-hitting words – with which I find myself in violent agreement – about this particular “concept”. Don’t miss her post, Canadian Greens & their Twisted Democracy.