BBC was sent CRU emails over a month ago

Climate bias

But because the BBC is the “Biased Broadcasting Corporation” and has already made up its mind on climate change (it’s all our fault), for some strange reason it didn’t think the content of the CRU emails was newsworthy enough to broadcast!

A BBC weatherman has admitted he was sent the controversial emails about how to “spin” climate data – more than a month before they were made public.

It has raised questions about why the BBC did not report on the matter sooner, and will reignite the debate over whether the Corporation is “biased” on the issue of climate change. [It is. Next question – Ed]

Thousands of emails and documents allegedly stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

The emails sent between world’s leading scientists apparently show researchers discussing how to ‘spin’ climate data and how that information should be presented to the media.

Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, has disclosed he was sent the leaked emails, a month ago, and claims the documents are a direct result of an article he wrote.

In his BBC blog written last week , he said: “I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world’s leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article “Whatever Happened To Global Warming”.

“The emails released on the Internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as I can see, they are authentic,” he added.

The BBC has previously accused of failing to cover the climate change debate objectively. Earlier this year, Peter Sisson, the veteran newsreader, claimed it is now “effectively BBC policy” to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.

He said: “The Corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that “the science is settled”, when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t.

“But it is effectively BBC policy… that those views should not be heard.”

Goebbels really would have been proud.

Read it here.


  1. I think this one point might be a little unfair actually, much though I despise the institutional dishonesty of BBC climate reporting. In fact Paul Hudson was merely sent the few emails referring to his story “Whatever happened to global warming?” rather than the whole caboodle, and so was not in a position to realise quite how corrupted the whole process had become.

  2. O (oggi) Tandogac says:

    It takes alot to convince me of any sort of conspiracy, be it JFK, 911 or the myriad others that have surfaced over my 50 year life.

    In light of the “denialism” of the mass stream media on this subject, the many governments who are chanting the alarmist line, I believe we are experiencing a NEW KIND OF CONSPIRACY, one that doesn’t require the participants to meet in the dead of night conspiring, but one achieved almost without much being spoken, one that is probably nigh on impossible to prove.

    We probably need a psychologist or a social scientist to explain this new phenomena.

  3. Oggi — it’s very simple: follow the money.

%d bloggers like this: