A few notes on climate change…..
Firstly there’s a 163 page complaint gone in to the BBC about its coverage of climate change…I imagine the reply will be somewhat briefer.
A major new and serious complaint has been sent to the Director General of the BBC, regarding the Corporation’s persistent bias in reporting of climate change issues. The complaint is a massive 163 pages long, and is a joint submission from ten complainants. In addition, there are several technical annexes, totalling 125 pages.
We enclose a complaint from all of us about persistent partiality in the BBC’s coverage of climate change. From the outset, on the climate question the BBC has tended to reflect only one view – that of the climate science establishment who are promoting a view that man is causing significant global warming (which, with the plateau in temperature, has morphed into “climate change”, a term that is used to cover a wide range of weather events). It has excluded those whose opinions, though based on factual science and sound economics and logic, differ from the “official” position. The BBC has often promoted tendentious and scientifically illiterate but “politically-correct” opinions and has kept from the airwaves those who do not agree.
We and many others alongside us have come to the opinion that the BBC’s continuing bias on the climate question – its performance is too often like a scientifically illiterate, naïve, oft times emotive green activist organisation – is unacceptable and must now be brought to an end. In future, both sides in the climate debate must be fairly heard, whether BBC staff like it or not.
Good luck with that.
Second, it is interesting that Roger Harrabin doesn’t seem to have used the ‘97% of all scientists‘ stick to support his climate change campaigning and beat the Sceptics with…I’ve tried to find something from him but no luck. Now that is very telling if confirmed…Harrabin is a hardcore propagandist for the climate lobby and yet he seems to have taken a look at this ‘killer’ statistic and decided not to use it. Is that because he recognises the stat is bogus and essentially a lie? His non-use of the stat would seem to indicate that it is entirely worthless, and so obviously worthless that Harrabin knows he would get called out on it and he wouldn’t be able to justify its use…exposing him as a propagandist.
Third thing of note relates to that 97% claim. The BBC has frequently reported on fraud and corruption in science, both from the scientists and those who report on it in the scientific journals….but not once have I heard the subject of climate change come under scrutiny in a similar manner….will that change? …from WUWT:
After a decade of slow growth beneath public view, the replication crisis in science begins breaking into public view. First psychology and biomedical studies, now spreading to many other fields — overturning what we were told is settled science, the foundations of our personal behavior and public policy. Here is an introduction to the conflict (there is pushback), with the usual links to detailed information at the end, and some tentative conclusions about effects on public’s trust of science. It’s early days yet, with the real action yet to begin.
This crisis emerged a decade ago as problems in a few fields — especially health care and psychology. Slowly similar problems emerged in other fields, usually failures to replicate widely accepted research.
“Men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence.”
— Goethe, from Conversations of Goethe with Eckermann and Soret.
With what we know about the likes of the CRU after their emails were hacked, what we know about the 97% claim, what we know about the ‘hockey stick’ manipulations, what we know about the conspiracy to hide the medieval warm period, and the ‘decline’, it is fairly obvious that the ‘science’ of climate change may in fact be more about big, big money, politics, ego and corruption. With so many reputations, careers and lucrative research grants on the line there has long been a hard fought battle to silence the critics and those who question the status quo, the so-called ‘consensus’. You just had to see the BBC’s science journos’ united front that marched out to defend the CRU and climate scientist Phil Jones when the emails surfaced to understand the problem…some people were more interested in covering up for the sicentists than in exposing wrongdoing or bad science.
Maybe that will change as WUWT suggests and more and more of that bad science and bad faith is exposed. Again good luck with that. Climate change is a massive industry worth billions which has sucked in not just the scientists but the politicians and journalists as well as the cultural cheerleaders such as artists, actors, singers and writers who so usefully give a ‘human face’ to the science that they so little understand. They have so much tied up in climate change actually happening and being man-made that any criticism or undermining of that belief will only succeed if there is an equally massive turn of events that stops people in their tracks, radically alters their perceptions and dramatically proves the science wrong or maybe wrong. Again, good luck with that….glaciers advancing down Salford high street would be presented as conclusive proof of global warming I’m sure…..and as I said they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their privileges and the cash flow….as noted by Matt Ridley in the Times recently …and spot the hand of the Rasputin-like Richard Black in this (You can’t keep a good man down)…..via ‘Not a lot of people know that’…
The editor of this newspaper received a private letter last week from Lord Krebs and 12 other members of the House of Lords expressing unhappiness with two articles by its environment correspondent. Conceding that The Times’s reporting of the Paris climate conference had been balanced and comprehensive, it denounced the two articles about studies by mainstream academics in the scientific literature, which provided less than alarming assessments of climate change.
Strangely, the letter was simultaneously leaked to The Guardian. The episode gives a rare glimpse into the world of “climate change communications”, a branch of heavily funded spin-doctoring that is keen to shut down debate about the science of climate change.
The letter was not entirely the work of the peers but, I understand, involved Richard Black, once a BBC environment correspondent and now director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, an organisation that spends more than £500,000 a year, largely trying to influence the media.
Of course there is one redoubt in the BBC where journalism is given a fair go…Andrew Neil holds the fort…and here explains, & his colleagues should read it, what good journalism is all about…
The Sunday Politics interview with Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey on July 14 provoked widespread reaction in the twittersphere and elsewhere, which was only to be expected given the interview was about the latest developments in global warming and the implications for government policy.
The Sunday Politics remit and interview duration means we are able to carry out proper forensic interviews on such matters.
It is becoming a hallmark of our programme, whether it’s challenging the global warming assumptions of the climate change secretary, the NUT’s historic resistance to school reforms by Tory and Labour governments, or the activities of the leader of the English Defence League.
Many of the criticisms of the Davey interview seem to misunderstand the purpose of a Sunday Politics interview.
We did come at Mr Davey with a particular set of evidence, which was well-sourced from mainstream climate science. But it was nothing to do with advocating a “position”.
First, the Sunday Politics does not have a position on any of the subjects on which it interrogates people.
Second, it is the job of the interviewer to assemble evidence from authoritative sources which best challenge the position of the interviewee.
There is hardly any purpose in presenting evidence which supports the interviewee’s position – that is his or her job.
It is for viewers to decide how well the interviewee’s position holds up under scrutiny and the strength of the contrary evidence or points put to him or her.
Taking an opposite or challenging position from the person being interviewed is pretty much standard practice in long-form broadcast interviews.
But the contrary position has to be based on reputable evidence.