Was he pushed? Did my work to highlight his close relationship with activist groups help?
“This is my last entry for this page – I’m leaving the BBC to work, initially, on ocean conservation issues.”
So it appears Richard has chosen another path. Good luck to him and thankfully he can no longer poison the “impartial” BBC with his viewpoint.
Surprised that Bishop Hill has not carried the news, very surprised indeed.
Anthony Watts has released the news that has kept his blog Watts Up With That under radio slience for an unprecendented length of time.
What is it all about? In a nutshell, the station siting classification used by Muller is bunk and so his conversion to the church of global warming hysteria is probably based on dodgy data and ideologically-motivated conclusions.
NOAA is over-estimating warming across the continental USA by double the reality.
Muller’s paper and conversion mean NOTHING.
A miracle one hopes.
Things are about to get interesting.
UPDATE: I’ve been advised by concerned friends that speculation on the nature of this announcement has gotten out of hand in the blogosphere, and that was not my intent. My intent was to give me time to work and something very important without the distraction of this blog, emails/twitter/facebook, etc.
As many of you know, running WUWT is a monumental task which I could not do without the help of many people. Even so, it still requires my constant attention.
First, I am well. This isn’t a health issue for me or my family.
Second, my announcement has nothing to do with FOIA issues or other sorts of political or social theories being bandied about on other blogs.
It does however have something to do with one of my many projects, and it has important implications that I’m sure everyone will want to know about.
I greatly appreciate all the concern and interest, and I look forward to being able to share all my work on Sunday. – Anthony
So. Nothing’s happened and anthony is not playing the game as people thought. Stand down people.
On 13/04/2011, 09:31:00, Emily Benson, created a document titled “Earth Summit 2012: Media Brainstorm and Activities“. This document appears to have pulled together all the ideas for media coverage from Stakeholder Forum at the RIO+20 conference.
In it are a number of interesting entries.
“Earth Radio. RB to find out logistics”
“Rio Retrospective. EB to follow up with Richard Black”
“More and more organisations are now producing their own audio content. These range from the UNFCCC Secretariat, to NGOs, to the BBC. Etc. They offer a diverse and often dynamic approach to a number of issues that are critical to the Earth Summit. We would like to collect many of these outputs into a single ‘Earth Radio’ channel where users can surf, pick and listen to a range of different programmes that tackle different areas of sustainability.
Action: RB looking into the feasibility of this.
Action: EB/RB/NW brainstorm on funding“
“Retrospective on Rio: Action: Discuss with Richard Black who was going to pitch it to the Beeb.“
The above is unquestionable evidence of a close relationship between Richard Black and advocacy group Stakeholder Forum. He has evidently been working closely with them and even ready to “pitch to the Beeb” on their behalf, thereby using our public money to help Stakeholder Forum with their propaganda aims for the RIO+20 conference.
Training The Mindbenders.
Another interesting entry in the document is this one:
“Training: Develop a long term package to train up a team of young journalists from developing and developed countries around sustainable development/environmental reporting. This could complement some of the work already undertaken by the Media Partnership (IIED) who are focused exclusively on climate change and the UNFCCC process.
Action: EB to contact the BBC World Service Trust/TVE to test a project idea with them – perhaps something to approach the EU for funding for? Or some of the larger media foundations, i.e. Reuters/Thompson Foundation? Ted Turner Foundation?“
Here is documented evidence that the BBC were to be contacted to help train journalists who would work on behalf of Stakeholder Forum. Was that idea followed through? Well, according to the budget document I unveiled here, there is a budget for this journalistic training:
Note how the BBC mentor is an environment correspondent, and how he will be paid the not unsubstantial sum of £4200. Not also how he will receive 14 days accomodation at £200 per day. Not a bad little earner is it? Who do we think that “environment correspondent” was? Join the dots between the brainstorming document and the budget document and you have your man: Richard Black. Clear evidence not only of Richard black working with Stakeholder Forum, but clear evidence of Richard Black working for Stakeholder Forum.
Let me again remind you of the BBC Trust’s impartiality statement from the Royal Charter:
“The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.”
BBC Royal Charter Agreement 2006.
Again, I challenge the BBC to justify how Richard Black working for an advocacy group both before and during RIO+20 (surely he is mentoring those new journo’s while there?) can possibly allow him to remain impartial?
UPDATE: “Sources I demand sources”. Here you go.
Much was made of the amount of money donated to the Heartland Institute during the recent leak by Peter Gleick. The “climate realists” made much of the surprisingly small annual budget Heartland has - a projected $7.7 million for 2012.
With one week to go until the attempt at a global coup d’etat, led by Felix Dodds’ shady umbrella organisation “Stakeholder Forum” at RIO+20, I thought it was time to release some figures I have received.
What if I told you that Stakeholder Forum’s budget just for RIO itself is an astonishing 5, 356, 133. Now I am not sure if that is Dollars (US) or Pounds (UK) as the spreadsheet I have seen has no monetary symbols on it. I am convinced of it’s authenticity however, as it was created by “Hannah Stoddart” who is an employee of Stakeholder Forum. However, as Stakeholder Forum is mainly a UK entity, I am assuming the budget is in Pounds Sterling. This makes their Rio budget a massive$8,321,938.02, MORE THAN THE ENTIRE PROJECTED BUDGET FOR THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE IN 2012.
Big Oil, what a joke.
Below is a screen shot of the financial overview.
As you can see from a bit of the detail in the screenshot below, Stakeholder Forum are spending an amazing £68,400 on PODCASTS along for the RIO+20 conference. That is some serious social media propaganda.
Remember the fuss made because Heartland were thinking of giving Anthony Watt’s $88,000 to set-up a website for the surfacestations project? Well, let’s see what Stakerholder Forum have spent on their website for RIO….
That is correct, your eyes are not deceiving you. A total of £130,000 ($201,965.91) has been allocated to their RIO website over three years. Remember, this is the budget for RIO ALONE. This is NOT Stakeholder Forum’s annual warchest.
Put’s the “realists” bleating about big oil into perspective doesn’t it?
Now, where does the BBC and Richard Black fit into this information? Ah, well that is coming in part two. Let’s just say that Richard is doing a bit more at RIO than covering it for the BBC and will be earning a tidy sum on top of his BBC salary.
I had the dubious pleasure of sitting at home yesterday. Indoors you understand, due to the 17th straight day of rainfall, with yesterday’s being the most persistent yet.
Even today, it has rained heavily for four of the past 7 hours.
Yet, I saw several times on BBC News 24 some BBC journo standing by a reservoir, in the rain just for some added irony, telling me that a bit of heavy rain would not mend the damage of “several very dry years”.
Then we had a rent-an-eco-nut from the Met Office telling the camera how dry it was.
Then we had someone from Anglian Water telling us how they do all they can, but it is just very dry right now.
This nonsense was repeated on the Main BBC 6.30pm news as well. I think the poor hack had been standing in the rain all day at this reservoir. He stood by a big lump of old wood and claimed the water is “usually” up to here (about 6 feet above where he was standing.
So let’s look at some simple facts.
Here is the UK annual rainfall, courtesy of the MET:
Now that data only goes up to 2010, but look at the pink trend line. Level. Flat. Look carefully at the graph. Then ask yourself, if this is such a mega-bad drought, how on earth did we survive between 1955 and 1995 when it was consistently lower than it has been since 1995. In fact, look at the rainfall from 1995 – 2010. We have had a LOT of rainfall.
So what about 2011, the “missing link” that the BBC, MET and ANGLIAN WATER all claim was “exceptionally dry” and a lack of rainfall that would “become more frequent due to climate change” (odd how we are also told it will get warmed and wetter …)?
Well, it was actually only “exceptionally dry” in the south east, where rainfall levels did dip to as little as 13% of average (1979-2000 average) for a short period in East Anglia. But what was the truth of 2011?
Here is a pretty picture for you:
As you can see, despite what we were told, the rainfall levels for most of 2011 were actually 50-70% of normal in England and Wales and in many areas up to 90%. That is a lot different to “unprecedented low rainfall” as quoted by the MET.
The Alarmist MET, the Alarmist BBC, the Shareholder-Driven Water Companies…..
I urge you to download this report from the Centre For Ecology & Hydrology, co-authored by the MET. It sheds some interesting light on the “drought”. I would especially urge you to read the borehole September averages against actual for September 2011, on Page 8. I would also draw your attention to the “selected reservoirs” data:
Compare the 2011 October line with the Minimum October data and the years of that minimum. Are we in a drought that the current rain “will not ease”? Are the reservoirs at the implied unprecendented low levels we are led to believe by the daily propaganda update from the BBC? Look at Thames water – London and Farmoor. 80% full, 93% full last October.
This from Thames Water:
“Our London reservoirs were 97 per cent full and our Farmoor Reservoir in Oxfordshire was 100 per cent full on 31 March 2012. “
So, despite the unprecedented drought in the South East, despite the ever increasing population squandering this precious and dwindling (so we are told daily) resource, reservoir levels in our most densly-populated and driest region, went UP 7% to FULL between October 2011 and March 2012.
Yes I know, cherry picking! Nasty, ‘orrible cherry picker of data that fits my message.
Ok, so what about Rutland reservoir.
That sits right in the middle of the burnt, brown, desert that is Englands drought zone.
“Our last check at Rutland Water last week (around 20th April) showed that water levels were at 77 per cent of capacity”
77%. My god, turn off your hosepipes. Stop washing your dirty little personal crevices. Let your children run the streets in filthy clothes.
SEVENTY SEVEN PERCENT.
In no human beings universe can that glass be half empty. It’s actually 77% full.
Thank you commenter “MostlyHarmless” for pointing out my schoolboy typing errors. I did of course mean to say that the pink line was the average and meant to say that the black line is the trend and it actually goes up.
“March global temperatures were coolest since 1999″ states the headline.
Good news, phew, maybe we are all not going to die after all and the CO2 obsession is over.
“The average global temperature for March 2012 made it the coolest March since 1999…..”
“….yet the 16th warmest since record keeping began in 1880″
Damn. So we are all still doomed. The SIXTEENTH warmest in 132 years.
Wow, we are doomed.
Religion. Money grabbing. Politics. Not science.
I thought this was a nice graph that shows the entire extent of the “we are all going to die from evil CO2 warming, send us your money” hysteria created by Mr Hansen.
And on the subject of Hansen, this is a wonderful post from Steve Goddard.
Remember, Hansen is an activist. Felix Dodds is an activist. Richard Black and the BBC are activists. The RIO coup is coming. Time to end the gravy train once and for all.
One word. Politics.
I simply do not buy the “ooh it was all just a communications mess up, honest. We are innocently changing the way we process the data and nobody told anyone when it was happening…” line from Walt Meier NSIDC.
“Come next spring, we’re just going to have a lot of thin ice that formed over the autumn and winter. That’s the stuff that melts out easily the next summer,” Serreze says. “So there’s a feedback at work here, and that feedback is getting stronger with time.”
Mark Serreze, who heads the National Snow and Ice Data Center, speaking in 2011.
Well, with that sort of balanced, objective open mind at the top, it is obvious that the “shift” in data, and the sudden lag in publishing results over the past two weeks is all simply a change in processing of the data.
It’s nasty left wing politics at work backed by money and a bunch of people who have backed themselves into a corner.
That line will NEVER cross the “normal”, it will not be allowed to happen.
Not convinced? Look at the timing. What are the chances that as the trend is about to hit undeniable “normal”, they change the processing methodology? Why introduce basically a 4 day delay in the data being available, you know to “smooth out the wiggles”.
In part one, I outlined how an unelected front for many NGO’s, Stakeholder Forum, is trying to influence Governments and the UN in an attempt to see their own world vision implemented through RIO+20. In this part I will explore how a BBC journalist, with the knowledge of the BBC, participates in the that process.
“With Basque government support, Stakeholder Forum hosted the UNEP Global Environmental Outlook Outreach working group in San Sebastian, Spain, on 4-6 October 2007.” – Stakeholder Forum Network 2015 Publication
After reading part one you will know how Stakeholder Forum seeks to influence UNEP through a close relationship that involves bascially organising and controlling the “Outreach Group” who directly advise UNEP on their communication strategy relating to their key “Global Environmental Outlook” reports. These reports are digested by Governments, so the Outlook Group directly influences discussion at national Government level as well as within the UN. GEO4 was their last report, GEO-5 is their next one:
“The GEO-5 full report will be launched in June in time for the celebration of World Environment Day and the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development Rio+20.”
Continuing to quote from the Network 15 PDF:
“The Outreach group is comprised of NGOs, media and other stakeholders; and it advises UNEP on its outreach strategy for the Global Environmental Outlook 2007 report. This includes outreach in both the traditional forms of media as
well as new ones, such as the Internet. The team also aims to engage stakeholders in promoting and using the information in GEO-4 (the Fourth Global Environment Outlook) to ensure political decision-makers are much more aware of the state of the world’s environment.”
So the Outreach Group advises UNEP and it looks at how unelected NGO’s can better use the information within the GEO reports to pressure Governments. In the Network 2015 document there is a photo of the Outreach Group at the San Sebastian meeting:
There, behind an Felix Dodds and Esther Larranaga, is Richard Black. BBC journalist, a publicly funded broadcaster with a duty to remain impartial, in the middle of an advisory process that seeks to influence Government decisions. There with the full knowledge and agreement of the BBC.
The Donostia Declaration.
Sounds a bit like a Jason Bourne sequel doesn’t it? Well our “International Man Of Mystery” Richard Black certainly seems to be living an exciting life, not firing guns, but certainly helping to make and load the unelected NGO’s influence-bullets.
Before we go any further, I would like, again, to remind readers of the wording of the Royal Charter:
“The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.”
BBC Royal Charter Agreement 2006.
Just to make it crystal clear, climate change and political environmentalism are without doubt “controversial subjects”. Being part of the process of unelected advocacy attempting to influence governance is clearly compromising that impartiality. How can anyone who has to be impartial remain so if they get that close to the process and the people within it?
The Donostia Declaration , according to Stakeholder Forum on their Earth Summit website, came about from a workshop they held as part of the propaganda efforts to get a RIO+20 conference:
“13th – 14th November 2008: Stakeholder Forum with support of the Basque Government hosted an informal multi-stakeholder workshop on 13th – 14th November 2008 in San Sebastian to kick-start discussions on the realisation of an Earth Summit in 2012.
The workshop convened representatives of governments, civil society, intergovernmental organisations and UN agencies to discuss the challenges that lie ahead. Nitin Desai, former Secretary General of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 contributed to the discussions via video-link, as did John Scanlon, Principal Advisor to the Executive Director at theUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
All participants expressed overriding support for the hosting of a Rio+20 Earth Summit in 2010, and the discussions and proposals that arose in the meeting were captured in the ‘Donostia Declaration’ – a document making the case for a Summit and providing recommendations as to its focus.
The Donostia Declaration has since been translated into five languages and is one of the only documents produced that was based on interaction between governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. Enshrined within the Donostia Declaration is the principle of multi-stakeholder dialogue and a common vision.“
Wow, so they basically created an NGO common vision bible.
The Declaration called for RIO+20. It also asked for the summit to make decisions on “Global Governance”, “Global Goals”, “A Global New Green Deal”, “Mobilisation”, “Education For Sustainable Development” and finally for the complete implementation of “Agenda 21″.
So how did the Donostia Declaration influence policymakers? This, from Felix Dodds’ own Earth Summit blog (which should really carry a sub-heading of “The world is all about Felix”) tells us:
“The twenty fifth session of UNEP Governing Council finished on the 20th of February . One of the really interesting discussions around the 2012 agenda was initiated by the South African Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk in a speech at the plennary session on International Environmental Governance (IEG). He outlined a roadmap on IEG:
“The first milestone will be when we meet in a year from now, in February 2010. At that meeting we should ideally adopt a Ministerial Declaration on the principles and objectives (on IEG) that will guide our further work in the run-up to Rio plus 20.”
Other Ministers in the plennary and the working groups supported the use of Rio+20 for bringing a final decision on International Environmental Governance. Stakeholder Forum in the Ministeral Round Tables outlined three outcomes they hoped for on IEG – these included support for the South African inititiative but expanded to include sustainable development governance. The second outcome Stakeholder Forum wanted to see was support for the setting up of an adhoc Ministerial Working Group to prepare for the next UNEP GC in 2010 while keeping an eye on the climate change negotiations in December at the UNFCCC. This is to ensure it has a positive impact on international environmental governance. The final issue raised was to ask the UN Secretary General to consider setting up a High Level Panel or Commission on the Global Green New Deal.
All delegates at the UNEP GC were given a copy of the Donostia Declaration which was the outcome from a workshop on Earth Summit 2012 in November. If you want to follow developmengts on 2012 this can be done at the Earth Summit 2012 web site.”
Stakeholder Forum tried to influence decisions on “Environmental Governance” through ministerial round tables and it gave copies of the Donostia Declaration to all UNEP delegates in an attempt to influence their decision relating to the holding of, and agenda for, a 2012 Rio+20 summit. This document was a result of the “workshop” held in San Sebastian in November 2008.
So who was at that workshop? And did they truly represent “governments, civil society, intergovernmental organisations and UN agencies” in stature and numbers worthy of releasing a grand call-to-arms seeking to influence a UN proposal for a RIO+20 and its agenda? Lets have a look:
David Wollcombe – Peace child
Nuha Ma’ayt – General Fed. Of Jordanian Women
Roy Cabonegro – Suswatch
Jan Gustav Strandenaes – ANPED (The Northern Alliance for Sustainability)
Richard Black – BBC
Michael Strauss – Earthmedia
Remi Parmentier – Varda group
Muhammad Al-Sayrafi – FoE Qatar
Pam Puntney – UMICH (University of Michigan)
Luc Bass – (Appears to be an Ex-Belgian Governmental advisor)
Itziar Eizagirre Irureta – Mirua 21
Oliver Deleuze – UNEP
Richard Scherman – IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development)
Daniel Ziegerer – Swiss FOEN (Federal Office for the Environment)
Xabier Ezeizabarrena – (Can’t get much, but he appears to have been a “candidato del Partido Nacionalista Vasco”)
Felix Dodds – Stakeholder Forum
Hannah Stoddart – Stakeholder Forum
Virginia Prieto – Stakeholder Forum
Derek Osborn – Stakeholder Forum
Now I don’t know about you, but that does not strike me as a group of people who have the knowledge and stature to draft grand declarations that can be used to pressure the UN and national Governments about sustainability, governance and climate change? I see four people from Stakeholder forum, various NGO’s, a couple of low-level greenie academics and….ah, a BBC journalist.
So Richard Black was invited and attended. He was part of the workshop that created the Donostia Declaration. Was that all he did at that workshop?
Well, actually no.
An internal draft workshop agenda tells us that he was far more than just a face in the room:
“Media – Lessons from the WSSD and the Obama Campaign - Richard Black, BBC Environment Correspondent”
Reading the actual Donostia Declaration document is also revealing:
“The workshop was organized by Stakeholder Forum. It was made possible by the financial support of the Basque regional Government and logistical support by IHOBE, IT consultancy Proyelia, the International Court of Environmental Arbitration and Conciliation Office of San Sebastian, and the office of the San Sebastian Film Festival. In particular I would like to thank Richard Black, Ibon Galarraga, Rémi Parmentier, Derek Osborn, Virginia Prieto, Hannah Stoddart, Michael Strauss, Genevieve Verbrugge and David Woollcombe, for the help they have given to organise the workshop and the production of the Donostia Declaration. “
Richard Black, BBC journalist, was thanked for the help he gave in organising the workshop and producing the Donostia Declaration. Let me repeat that:
Organising the workshop and producing the Donostia Declaration.
“I’m just a patsy” – Lee Harvery Oswald.
BBC correspondent Roger Harrabin was widely criticised for his activities that attempted to influence and shape reporting of climate change in the media. Richard Black, people assumed was a poor dumb ideologist who parroted the message because he was allowed to, thanks to the activities of Harrabin.
However, in my various posts I have shown clear evidence that Richard Black is actually more influential and more partisan than Harrabin. Richard Black is directly involved in training people to influence policy globally. He helped to create advocacy documents, organised sessions and meetings. He advises, broadcasts and writes through the direct influence of his close relationship with the unelected NGO-front Stakeholder Forum and its power-seeking head-honcho, Felix Dodds.
Richard Black has, through clear evidence outlined in my posts, teamed up with Stakeholder Forum on these occasions (and there of course could be many more that I have not been able to find evidence for yet):
- In 2007 contributing to the UNEP outreach strategy, organised and run by Stakeholder Forum. The stated aim of that group being to give ammo to NGO’s.
- In 2008 helping to produce the Stakeholder Forum tool for NGO lobbying, “The Donostia Declaration” and helping to run and organise the workshop that led to its creation.
- In 2009 presenting at Stakeholder Forums “Working with the Media” training day.
- In 2009 Helping SF at CSD-17 by mentoring for them with the help of the BBC world service.
- In 2009 and 2010 presenting at SF’s “Learning to Lobby” training days.
- In 2011 moderating a session at the Stakeholder Forum organised “Bonn Conference”.
That is not it. I have information about Richard Black’s current relationship with SF as we approach RIO+20. This post has dealt with the historical relationship. My next will take you further down the rabbit hole.
Richard Black’s relationship with Felix Dodds and Stakeholder Forum is long and intimate. His input helps to shape the output of Stakeholder Forum, which in turn is being used by many unelected advocacy groups to push for a RIO+20 and now they have it, to get radical social and economic change. None of them elected, accountable or transparent.
Richard Black. A poor patsy who just writes his stuff and takes flak from climate sceptics?
I ask that you forward this to the BBC and its Trust and ask them for answers. Send it to your MP and ask them how this aids the BBC upholding its obligations under the Royal Charter Agreement. Spread this far and wide.
“ In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
According to research that has been published in an academic journal, Plus One, and reported by the BBC, changing climate could pose a threat to worldwide Arabica crops. Arabica is crucially important to the coffee industry, and it is one of the main strains which has commercial use.
In the worse case scenario due to climate change, it was predicted that there would be a 99.7% reduction in sites where it can be grown by 2080. The best case scenario, according to the model they used to predict carbon emissions, was a 65% reduction.
This will have bad ramifications for those people in poor parts of the world who depend on farming coffee for a living. It will also be a disaster for all those who are addicted to their daily shots of espresso, as prices will rise, and all those who currently enjoy making their espresso quickly and easily at home with espresso machines like the Nespresso Citiz and milk espresso machine and Nespresso Pixie, may find it increasingly uneconomical to do so.
The results of this study have been described as conservative, as they do not take into account other environmental factors like continuing deforestation in major coffee going areas. Pests and diseases, and the changes in bird numbers and their flight ranges will also play a part, and were not taken into account.
Countries like Ethiopia, Brazil and Columbia are some of the largest producers of Arabica coffee, and it is predicted will be hit hard if the predictions of this model prove to be as accurate as the researchers think.
Of course, the natural variations that occur in the earth’s climate do inevitably result in changes in the ranges of both crops and animals.
Is this an example of accurate and reliable predictive research, or will it prove to be more exaggerated scaremongering? I guess only time will tell.