Ever since I appeared on the CBC in early December to argue about Climategate, a mountain of evidence has come forth to indicate that the story the CBC ignored for so long, has genuine scientific evidence backing it. Whether it be Glaciergate or Africagate or Naturaldisastergate [sorry, I made that last one up myself], the CBC is unrelenting in it’s intent to ignore the issue.
If you actually search for the term climategate on the CBC website, you’re given some very slim pickings indeed. There’s Rex Murphy’s editorial that aired the same day I was on TV, the Maxime Bernier open letter to the Gazette, and there’s a very belated explanation from the CBC ombudsman on the Delayed coverage of “Climategate”. But not much else in the way of reporting what’s going on the world on this critical story, other than a brief summary of events from a Canadian Press story in February.
Instead, we’re fed a steady dose of climate change articles and editorials from “experts”, authors, and scientists, giving an ample amount of coverage to David Suzuki and his foundation. Indeed, if you enter the term “climategate” into the CBC search engine you are returned with 54 results, one of which was my first and final appearance on the public broadcaster. But enter in the term “climate change”, and be prepared for a flood of 9,040 results. Granted, some are years old and, but I think my 0.6:100 ratio point is taken.
What the CBC does give plenty of face time to, is articles like this one, written by Richard Handler, entitled The burden of believing in global weirding. Using the same shamefully patronizing language of the subject of his story, Al Gore, he writes that it would be “wishful thinking” to believe that all this bad news about Climategate disproves the science of man-made climate change. He goes on to attribute the cold and snowy winter experienced by most of the Northern Hemisphere this year to, you guessed it, global warming.
One of the greatest shams of the “Inconvenient Truth” rhetoric is that it doesn’t stand up under the “follow the money” scrutiny. Climate scientists like Dr.Rajendra Pachauri of the IPCC, and thousands like him around the world, have greatly benefitted from funding placed in climate research. And the CBC crown corporation has spent millions of dollars on programs promoting scientists, like David Suzuki, who fulfill an editorial directive. Meanwhile, those people like Al Gore, involved in the collusion between government and green energy corporations, have made millions of dollars on legislation aimed at shifting government spending into areas of green technology.
On February 5, the CBC Ombudsman, Vince Carlin, explained in a statement why the CBC delayed coverage of the Climategate story.
According to Esther Enkin, Executive Editor of CBC News, the explanation was merely a lapse in assessing the value of the story. Defending the move, she pointed to other mainstream news outlets that similarly ignored the story. To this I would respond with a simple comparison.
The CBC ran a story one day after University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran claimed, without evidence, to have seen the unredacted documents pertaining to the Afghan detainee issue that would prove Canada’s direct involvement in ordering the torture of captured combatants. The “value” of broadcasting unsubstantiated rumours of secret documents not meant for public consumption would, it seems, depend entirely upon whether other media outlets are doing the same thing. It isn’t as if CBC tried to scoop CTV on the Amir Attaran story, right? But climategate? Well, let’s just wait two weeks and see if anybody touches it with a ten-foot pole.
The ombudsman statement continues:
While it may be comforting to some to point to the lapse in coverage by other major main-stream outlets, I am afraid that CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices, and our own self-esteem, do not allow that as an excuse for poor journalism. Ironically, the story may have received more coverage than was really justified by the “real” scientific revelations contained in the documents–i.e., not many.
In any event, this was not the CBC’s finest hour. I trust that appropriate attention will be brought to bear on the weekend staffing of CBCNews.ca and other immediate response units of CBC News.
Not much has changed since this statement. CBC continues to ignore the scientific debate, and continues to editorialize the “consensus” view. While they can afford to pay journalists to give full-time attention to speculating about redacted documents pertaining to Afghanistan, it would seem nobody in the mother corp can spare more than a few moments to write about the ongoing scandals of the IPCC and the information wars on climate.
Bang on, great topic, straight to the point. Thanks Adrian.
Great post.
I certainly object to my tax dollars being used in such a biased and blatant way!
While the CBC slooooooooooowly corrects the Climategate record it should take this time to fire David ‘put the deniers in jail’ Suzuki. The government of Canada should strip the Order of Canada from Mr. Suzuki.
The CBC is not about a unifying national media,it has degraded to a career oriented lifestyle. It is a travesty that the CBC,defenders of Canadians trust,theoretically objective & curious,willingly ignore issues.I also assume that when the CBC references lapse of coverage by other main stream media they are refering to their junior partner torstar as the G&M,NP,&SUN have at least had some articles critical of the GW fraud.
Well, the consensus view of the CBC is that they should be terminated, will they support that? Canadians could save a BILLION a year if we let them sink or swim on their own.
I have no problem funding CBC, but only after every Canadian has a family doctor.
Yes, the much vaunted CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices, the same standards that had Mansbridge and Niel Macdonald reporting that the real mother of 4 1/2 month old Trig Palin was Bristol Palin, who happened to be 5 months pregnant at the time.
And every news organization except the CBC was aware that the rumour was utter nonsense, since that is what the rest of the media reported 2 days before the CBC ran it’s smear.
They are either the most unethical journalists
on the planet or the most incompetent.
Most likley they are both.
Look at that, 2 of the top 7 sponsors for TERI India have a Canadian connection, you know where Dr R K Pachauri is Director-General.
From here, http://www.teriin.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43
“Sponsors
TERI appreciates the support it receives from a very large number of organizations. We would like to acknowledge in a very limited way the support of a few sponsors who have either reposed confidence in the Institute through recurring support; or through large grants that have facilitated innovative research; or sponsors whose support has enabled TERI to achieve significant breakthroughs. This limited list in no way undermines the importance of others who have extended support to TERI through the years.
Multilateral/Bilateral organizations
Asian Development Bank
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)
Department for International Development (DfID)
Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH
European Commission
Health Effects Institute
India-Canada Environment Facility
…”
That India-Canada Environment Facility has a web page, where they claim they have received over $60M from Canada in funding.
I’ve asked Ms Oda via an informal access to information request by e-mail, as she holds the reins for CIDA, how much it cost to get our name on their sponsor page, as I could not really find anything while searching their web page.
No reply, it’s been 2 weeks, so I guess I’m going to have to make a formal request.
Surprising, considering that they practice proactive disclosure, and all I requested was a link to where I could find a compilation of grants and contracts awarded to TERI, which should already been on their web page.
Now if you were a reporter, would you not be licking your chops right now, and framing out your story line?
Your link won’t let me see the webpage, but you’ve done some good research. So how much does Canada currently admit it’s funded TERI for? $60M?
I don’t know how much we’ve given to TERI, that’s what I would like to know.
The ICEF shows this on their finance page, http://www.icefindia.org/finance.htm
“The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) provides funding through a counterpart fund. CIDA disbursements up to March 31, 2004 has been CND$ 61.4 million out of the total commitment of CND$ 72 million. No more funds are expected to be received from CIDA as per decisions taken in the bilateral meetings between Government of Canada and Government of India. The funds received so far, with interest earned on deposits, is projected to grow to the equivalent of Rs. 267 crores (CND$ 89 million) by the end of the project (December 2007).”
As the TERI page shows both CIDA and ICEF as sponsors, how much in total did we give them?
I wouldn’t even know where to begin finding that information without a request from the government. I did some searching yesterday, but I turned up nothing. CIDA is notoriously tight-lipped about its disbursements as I understand it.
International fraud,Canadian govt complicity,billions of dollars wasted and evidence to boot.CBC could cover such a story?Not when there is the Tiger Woody saga to hype.Save a billion canadian dollars/year fire them all ,then charge them with treason,stripping them all of pensions.They do not do their jobs,so why should we reward them? JRR Yellowknife