Thursday
Dec102009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The Report
Dec 10, 2009 Climate: CRU Climate: HSI Media Provided the producers decided I didn't waffle too much, I should appear in The Report, tonight at 8pm, UK time. Link here. It should be available on the iPlayer for a while thereafter.
Lots of people think I will have been set up ("They always set up the sceptics!").
Let's see....
Update on Dec 10, 2009 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Overall I was pretty pleased with that. I think the programme gave a fair crack of the whip to both sides and I think the conclusions were pretty much correct for where we stand now.
A few minor gripes:
- having said that the Hockey Stick isn't central to the AGW debate, it would have been nice if they hadn't cut off the bit where I explained why it matters
- the evidence that the IPCC process was biased against sceptics was not mentioned
- some mention of the code and maybe the Harry readme would have broadened the perspective.
But for my first experience of mainstream media, I'm quite happy (apart from the fact they didn't mention the book!!).
Reader Comments (28)
IPlayer--not available???
[BH: Looks like it's there now]
Pretty good analysis except I was disappointed concerning the concentration of the programme on the reality (or otherwise) of global warming rather than the scientific justification for claiming that global warming - if it is occurring - is largely man-made. I only caught the last 20 minutes of the programme but the data analysis emails were not mentioned. Also not mentioned was the refusal to release the algorithms of the computer models as well as the raw data. It was not made clear - in the Steve McIntyre sound-bite and the commentary round that siound-bite - that since replicability is at the heart of scientific refutation (or otherwise) that having neither the data nor the computer model algorithms made replication - and thus the process of science - impossible. The programme did make the point that the politicisation of climate science has made the "normal" scientific process difficult if not impossible to carry through. All in all, considering it was a BBC broadcast, there was a surprisingly even-handed approach: maybe because most of the contributors were scientists!
iPlayer currently indicates it will not be available. Sadly
Could you / did you, download a copy to post here or elsewhere?
It should be; give it a while. There should also be a podcast in the podcast section. I have a feeling that won't appear until tomorrow, when last week's edition expires.
podcast
(Currently pointing to last week's as I write this).
Well I have to say that was about as balanced a programme as one can expect on the mainstream media.
I noticed that the presenter used the word "hacked" once at the beginning, and "leaked" about halfway through, and as far as I noticed didn't use either word again. Good old BBC balance :-)
Good that he interviewed Steve McIntyre as well as His Grace. I don't think that the full story of the hockey stick was really covered adequately, but I suppose there just wasn't time.
I don't think the code was mentioned; just the emails. Again I suppose there would not have been time to do them justice.
As far as editors are concerned, the "science" remains unchallenged: Revkin and Mann had the last word. Unchallenged in this instance means unexamined.
And everyone lives to play another day.
The good news is no polar bears drowned in this show which is probably a first for a BBC programme on Climate Change. Personally, I would prefer the BBC to go back to "the science is settled" and "it's worse than we thought" - I find this new found "balance" rather unsettling.
Can someone download it please for non UK citizens? Its not working for me
IMHO, this was the most balanced report on ClimateGate that the BBC has come up with yet. Yes, we could gripe about what wasn't mentioned but it was well researched, well presented and had some excellent guests!!
Well done Bishop.
The most balanced I've heard in MSM so far.
It's a complicated subject, so there was no way that every point that "we" would consider important could be shoehorned into 30 minutes.
But this is the first widespread reporting of an accurate assessment of what "hide the decline" actually means.
I thought the dendro they interviewed played it with a straight bat, and as a result revealed some of the innate bias towards the "correct" result. Divergence is a problem, but with more research they can tease the warming signal from the source. Hmmm. He said it with such total frankness and lack of shame, it's obviously an honest (and genuinely honourable) response, but no less disturbing for that.
Yeh did good, yer Grace. I'd probably be correct in presuming that you did not rehearse your comments or consult with a PR firm. Michael Mann obviously did. I suspect, too, that you did not expect to find yourself being interviewed by the BBC or on your way to being considered a national spokesman of any sort, stripe or political persuasion. Best wishes.
A pretty balanced report; the BBC at its best - which hardly makes up for the rest of its coverage being so biased. You did well.
I'd pay my licence fee for this level of broadcasting.
Well done Your Grace.
Just listened to the iplayer version, very good indeed. The journalists involved had done their homework, and it showed. What a difference it makes to the quality of the work! I'd have preferred a bit more discussion of the science and the significance of the uncertainty versus the claims of 'settled' science, but perhaps that's a topic for a Horizon or Panorama (seeing visualisations of the data would help). I doubt any of the television journalists I've seen recently would come close to the capability of this team. [Your own contribution was very effective, measured, and fitted well into the programme.]
I've just seen Steve M's latest post on CA covering the way the 'decline' was hidden in the third IPCC report. Two quality pieces of work in one evening. Truly my cup runneth over...
I recorded it and uploaded it to a friend's web space for non UK residents. Only listened to part of it myself. Will get time later.
10mb, volume maximised
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tlr.chalmers/bbcclimategate.mp3
Yer grace, beggin yer pardon, if I may be so bold as to say you were not as brave as might have been wished. Perhaps a little overawed by the powers that be? When faced with the inquisitors, you could 'ave muttered under your breath... And yet it hid the decline. Well at least you were not burnt at the stake. We will live to fight another day....The printing press is alive and well...
Haven't managed to get the iPlayer to play more than 20 seconds yet, but look forward to hearing the full version shortly. BBC TV also gave about 12 minutes on the show called "This Week". Andrew Neil gave Nick Cohen a tough time and Micheal Portillo argued for debating the issues.
A few quotes:
NC - "To challenge 2 centuries worth of science, that's not scepticism, that's like saying I'm sceptical because I think the world is flat... It is perblind know-nothing ignorance.
The internet provides a space for the worlds nutters & fruitcakes, and this convention of the undereducated has in the last 2 weeks exploded because of the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia." [or Anjelina as some of our overseas friends might know it ;-) ]
He said he doesn't like to call us sceptics, but isn't allowed to call us "Deniers", so "Idiots" will have to do !!
MP - "A number of assertions are made, and I find they are not sufficiently debated."
MP - "Is this all being caused by mankind ? You say the science is clear other people say it's debateable".
MP - "The whole global concencuss, as you call it, on climate change, rests on a very narrow pillar of evidence and this narrow pillar has been developed largely in UEA."
MP also used the phrase "the rigging of the evidence", which was nice to hear.
Having spent the past few days watching every relavent youtube snippet of foreign TV and every UK TV broadcast that I could find on the topic, this was the first mainstream broadcast where the interviewer was grilling the AGW representative and supporting a sceptical (or "Idiot"!!) viewpoint. Maybe there is some hope that the excellent work that you "nutters & fruitcakes" are doing will one day be recognised and accepted by the general public.
Just in case that doesn't come across quite as sincerely as intended, I can assure you that, as a member of that general public, I am extremely grateful for the time and effort that so many of you are putting into this. I am not a scientist and I struggle to understand a lot of the explanations and discussions that are going on, but sites such as this and WUWT have been extremely informative. Please keep it up.
As more and more people start searching the internet for answers and information on the questions that are, at last, being asked in the MSM, it is vital that they can find clear, well written articles that explain things logically and without political slant. As new things come to light tell us which bits are important, and why they are important. Be inclusive not divisive and people will want to learn more and will then help to spread the word (and feel good, that in some small way, they were also involved in getting to the truth).
Thank you Andrew and all.
David Graham
Richard
I called it as I see it. They left out some of the strong concerns I expressed (re IPCC for example) but I wasn't going to rant at them either way. It's not my style.
An ok programme - it sounded fair, as already mentioned, but not a lot of real debate and rather too much spin from Simon..
Why does Simon say 'there no smoking gun' yet there are 'some serious issues' - sounds like 'nothing to see here, move along'.
Why make out Steve Mac seems only interested in his loyal Climate Audit readership? Has Simon read the research Steve has done?
Both leaked emails and computer code look like smoking gun to a punter like me because the serious of the manipulation of the science.
The deluge of FOI requests defence? This seems a daft - science should be open and raw data readily available.
If the computer code shows how they do the calculations there is more than a smoking gun, more like a smouldering bomb crater
And at the end Simon says 'the science has not been discredited'. I must have been reading the wrong stuff then because it looks to me that the science has been well and truly dinosaured - to use one contributers 'science is evolution' analogy.
Well done to Simon for reading all the leaked emails - I have read only a few and was surprised I picked only incriminating ones.
The shorthand of "smoking gun" was probably being used to cover "the whole thing is a scam". That's not there in the emails. The issues you refer to are very serious, and may well undermine the whole case, but it's a more nuanced issue that will take time to emerge fully.
Bish,
I stand somewhat corrected on the "hit piece" accusation, but will stand by what I said about burning a few scientists to save the rest of the heretics.
The conclusion of the report did for the first time I've heard of in the MMS, cite the fact that the science is NOT concluisve and all of the scientists are NOT in accordance, but I felt that the tone was such that Climategate will seem fleetingly polemic and be easily shrugged off.
Good work though, Squire!
Thanks Manolo. I think where the BBC are concerned a degree of caution is advisable, but Simon Cox has shown he can produce balanced pieces in the past. I was therefore wary, but not over-concerned.
Seems like next time you could ask them for a plug for the book. It costs them nothing but a split second: "And we also have A.W. Monford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion and a blog at ..."
Well there are other programmes for plugging books, e.g. "The Book Programme" with Mariella (phwoah) Frostrup ...
Cox doesn't hide his own views very well. Probably because like everyone else at the BBC he does not even realise that his own worldview is just one of many worldviews and not objective fact.
The programme should have let the leaked emails speak for themselves - instead of having a PR man trying to hide the decline in integrity.
It reminded me a lot of this bizarre page on the BBC website - recently updated The arguments made by climatechange sceptics
The page has been reformated so its less obvious that the "counter" text has nearly twice as many words. But that is not the biggest problem. Nor is the way that the "counter-sceptics" always have the last word.
No the big problem with the page is the fact that it exists at all. Why does the UK's national tax-funded broadcaster have an official position on a controversial subject and have a page to defend its position from questioners? It's like a religious cult telling believers what to say to non-believers.
having said that the Hockey Stick isn't central to the AGW debate, it would have been nice if they hadn't cut off the bit where I explained why it matters
That is what really puzzled me. Wondered why you didnt carry on to explain it. And about the IPCC. Didnt realise they had cut it off - the sw***s...
i thought that programme went well.
the programme brought up several issues- such as data destruction, and hiding data- which are key science areas, and where there is clear evidence of poor practice. Also several other issues strike home.
you are wise to say things that you can clearly support.
per
-the evidence that the IPCC process was biased against sceptics was not mentioned-
At this juncture I think it must be said that nobody should think that the IPCC would be anything but biased against sceptics.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has an obvious bias right in the name.
After all, the UN created an "Intergovernmental Panel" on the presumption that "Climate Change" was an issue that was critical to human survival, an issue of great concern.
It was a forgone conclusion that Climate Change was a crisis necessitating the creation of an Intergovernmental Panel and the role of the IPCC is to gather evidence to support that forgone conclusion, to promote that conclusion, and to keep their jobs going and the money flowing.