More CBC censoring of contra AGW views?

A few days ago, I once again wandered into the CBC “science” news wasteland. There I discovered yet another of their selections to add to the annals of the Church of Settled Science.

[Dec. 30, please note Updates at end of this post. -hro]

Scientists map speed of climate change

Quoting from the article, I posted the following comment:

hro001 Posted 2009/12/25 at 4:22 PM ET

“The research team behind the calculation says their result shows the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but also give scientists working in conservation valuable data for planning a response to global climate change.

“Scientists at the California Academy of Sciences, the Carnegie Institution of Science, Climate Central, and the University of California, Berkeley, used projections of greenhouse gas emissions over the next century provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to calculate the speed of ecosystem shifting.”

====
Bottom line: this is a mere “calculation” that seems to be built on the “projections” of the IPCC.

And as anyone who is not a “science is settled” lemming knows, the IPCC is a hotbed of interest conflicts and cloudy “climate science”.

https://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/interests-conflict-in-cloudy-climate-science/

The little lemming dutifully popped in to snip all context from my post and paste in one of his patented non-sequiturs:

Nunataq Posted 2009/12/25 at 5:54 PM ET

hro001 wrote:

— And as anyone who is not a “science is settled” lemming knows, the IPCC is a hotbed of interest conflicts and cloudy “climate science”. —

Do you guys get this stuff sent to you via some mass e-mail anti-science spam campaign or something ??

You might want to check into the number of sites springing up with the dirt on the “hotbed” of special interests and murky “junk science” before you go throwing stones.

Bet the recent Supreme Court ruling will REALLY fire up the blog world in this country. I’d bet there were some “high 5’s” going round a couple of Canadian blogs that come to mind, like DeSmog and DeepClimate.

I’m sure the link you sent may well be somewhat mildly amusing but I have plenty of my own that tend to smell less like petrol than some of the red herrings that get thrown out here from contrary folk.

Thanks all the same.

I had responded, but forgot to anticipate that the CBC “moderator” might very conveniently choose to overlook my post; sadly, my response is now permanently lost to cyber-posterity. But I’ve learned my lesson! Dropped in again, today, and posted the following (about an hour ago):

NorthernOnt wrote: 2009/12/26 at 2:14 PM ET

“So hear we have the CBC reporting on a “what if” study by Americans and ignore a Canadian peer-reviewed study based not on “what ifs” but actual empirical observed data, and they do not mention it. Is that eco-nut Bob McDonald from Quirks and Quarks choosing these stories for the CBC.”
====

And speaking of that which we are unlikely to see from the CBC … Here’s how they handled Climategate in Finland:

https://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/climate-science-finnished/

Perhaps the moderator is on an extended coffee-break, because the above has not yet appeared. I’ll update this page if/when it does.

Update Dec. 29, 3:30 PM: Several new posts on the thread – but no sign of mine! I have reposted and appended the following:

NOTE: this is a REPOST. Moderator: if this post “violates” your guidelines/policy, I believe my E-mail address is available to you, so kindly do me the courtesy of explaining why this post is unacceptable.

Stay tuned, folks!

Update2 Dec. 30, 6:30 p.m: Some new posts today, but still no sign of mine (and no explanatory E-mail from the moderator, either. Quelle surprise!) However, there were several new posts from the little lemming known as Nunataq, very disruptively and liberally sprinkled, I might add. So I decided to give it one more try:

Judging by the way that some people are including their own timestamp in their posts, my guess (along with my own 2 unsuccessful attempts since Dec. 28) is that posting is proving to be somewhat of challenge for some whose views do not resemble those of the nitwit, nunataq.

Who knows, maybe the nitwit is the “moderator?!” Anyway, maybe third time will be lucky!
===
NorthernOnt wrote: 2009/12/26 at 2:14 PM ET

“So hear we have the CBC reporting on a “what if” study by Americans and ignore a Canadian peer-reviewed study based not on “what ifs” but actual empirical observed data, and they do not mention it. Is that eco-nut Bob McDonald from Quirks and Quarks choosing these stories for the CBC.”
====

And speaking of that which we are unlikely to see from the CBC … Here’s how they handled Climategate in Finland:

https://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/climate-science-finnished/

REPOSTED and saved 6:28 p.m. Dec. 30

If this one doesn’t make it through, I’m going to try the CBC Ombudsman (not that I think s/he is likely to be particularly responsive!)

2 thoughts on “More CBC censoring of contra AGW views?

  1. I must admit my own visits to the CBC “science” section as well. My own polite and reasoned questions and clarifications never make it past the moderator either. I recall the halcyon days when I could listen to Quirks and Quarks without having my logic spasm with discontent. The Nature of Things has always been quite political even before AGW was in the public realm.

    It will be fascinating watching the AGW fraud unwind since the CBC were so complicit in it’s formulation.

    btw great blog!

    • I’ve actually posted two more responses to (what was to me, considering their known bias – and as you say “complicity”) an astounding article via AP.

      Slowdown in warming may be due to water vapour: study

      They’ve just appeared (much to my surprise!) Although I’m inclined to suspect that the moderator might wait until there are a sufficient number of not-so-reasoned responses in the hope that the reasonable ones will be overlooked ;-)

      Incidentally, it was my discovery (about 2 weeks BC [Before Climategate]) of the CBC’s complicity in fearmongering that set me off on the voyage of due diligence and self-education that led to the birth of this blog – which I’m glad you like!

      And it is fascinating watching the unravelling of the IPCC and its “settled science”. The tide is definitely turning!

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