For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.
Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.
Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:
If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
Two stories today from the Climategate 2 archives:
- Leaked emails raise questions about NYT’s Climategate coverage
- New emails link BBC executives to Climategate scientists
The first describes how Andrew Revkin, the Times’ primary environmental reporter, was entirely in the global warming camp, and worked with these corrupt scientists to push their agenda. It also quotes, from the climategate emails, Revkin’s contempt for anyone who expressed skepticism about the IPCC process and global warming.
The second describes how the BBC teamed up with these same corrupt scientists to keep any skepticism of global warming from being aired at any time.
Climategate’s second episode comprises a damning discovery that shows staff at the University of East Anglia (UEA) vetting BBC scripts, consulting on how the broadcaster should adjust its program output, and using the media outlet’s contact lists to block global-warming skeptics from the airwaves. Indeed, UEA climate scientists have reportedly developed a decade-long relationship with the government-funded BBC, which disproportionately guides the stream of broadcast news in the United Kingdom.
The problem here is not whether the climate is warming or not. The problem is the corruption of science and news reporting, for the sake of a political agenda. Rather than argue their case based on the facts, these global warming scientists did whatever they could to stifle their opponents. Worse, these two major media outlets, the New York Times and the BBC, eagerly cooperated with this effort.
This second fact, now documented in the second release of climategate emails, tells us that these news organizations are unreliable sources of information. And until they show an effort to clean house, they will remain unreliable.