Wednesday
Dec022009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill McKitrick on Channel 4 news
Dec 2, 2009 Climate: CRU Climate: McKitrick Ross McKitrick was just on Channel 4 News here in the UK, up against Bob Watson of UEA. It came over to me as a substantial victory for McKitrick.
Back when I was an auditor, I used to come across bureaucrats whose books didn't balance. They had many of the same mannerisms that Watson displayed.
I'll add an link to video if I can find it.
Reader Comments (20)
It seems like the host in Brazil keeps talking over McKitrick, who doesn't get the same time as Watson. I think McKitrick says the satellite does not show the same degree of warming, but I really can't tell cause Watson doesn't let him finish.
I don't see it as a victory for McIntrick, apart from the fact he just looked and sounded more plausible. The debate was far too narrow, shallow and brief to really get to the nub of the matter. They didn't even discuss gimping the peer review process, or the fact that the satellite warming probably isn't outside of the bounds of natural variation. I guess it's hard to get the point across in 30 second bites, isn't it?
Ross makes a calm reasoned point about data, and this goes off on glaciers and ice, I'm shocked he didn't get polar bears in there.
The three way interview was made difficult by the few seconds of delay, so it was difficult for them to avoid talking over each other. I was rather impressed by McKitrick, not having seen him before. He certainly came across well, and had a simple effective message.
Robinson
Yes, that was the point I was trying (rather ineffectively) to make. He just came over as straight down the middle whereas Watson, as always, came over as a buffoon with something to sell.
BBC should use land lines rather than satellite lines from Brazil? Very annoying that delay and McIntrick not being able to answer.
On the BBC 6pm London News a Professor Stanley Feldman from Imperial gave a solar panel salesman a good rhetorical shoeing. It was the most even handed discussion on the subject that I have seen on the BBC.
I was not aware of the good professor but he has apparently authored a book called 'Global Warming and other Bollocks', that title alone is worth 6 quid of my money.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Warming-Bollocks-Stanley-Feldman/dp/1844547183
Some people commenting are getting confused. Channel Four is NOT a BBC channel - unlike BBC4 which, erm... is.
Channel Four did show "The Great Global Warming Swindle" but otherwise, like the rest of TV in the UK, is selling wall-to-wall AGW.
The discussion is a real mess, wast of time.
I watched the C4 news item, and it was typically shallow, with John Snow showing no understanding at all of the issue; still it was better than their previous attempt at a climate change debate (anyone remember the notorious piece a few years back with "Moonbat" laying into poor old David Bellamy, aided and abetted by John Snow ).
However, I have to say that Ross McIntrick didnt come across particularly well either. True, Watson's presentation style is a heady blend of small town politician and used car salesman, but thats not the point.
We here may know what Ross was driving at when he talks about spatial patterns of land use, but the average viewer of that program wont have the faintest idea and the Peoples Republic of C4 News are never going to tell them. A prime time slot like that was a priceless opportunity to get our point across and we end up looking like a bunch of anoraks (sorry Ross, I admire your work - honestly - I just dont think you are that good on tv mate)
Folks if we are ever going to get our message across we have to smarten up our media presentation and get someone alot more tv-savvy to present our case. I dont know who that person might be, but for God's sake dont use Monckton, unless he is first told to stop imitating Al Gore's accent and to stop calling everyone in sight a liar and a fraud. Calm reasoned argument that the layperson can understand will win this for us. Anger and obscure points of climate data analysis dosnt stand a chance
peace
Interesting first question to McKitrick (did he have anything to do with the "hack"). Wonder if Snow was put up to that?
Also interesting that Rees, last time I saw anything on the scope of his inquiry, was going to look at whether someone was paid to hack/release the data. CRU fraudsters projecting their own motives, perhaps?
Instead of "worded inappropriately", in the case of deleting material which is the subject of an FOI request, try "evidence of criminal intent".
"Any deforestation puts carbon into the atmosphere and that causes climate change" [or words to that effect]
Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't forests fundamentally carbon neutral over their lifetime (unles you can guarantee they'll end up as fossil fuels)? So if you cut down a forest and replace it with crops or grasslands which are CO2 sinks then deforestation would surely be *slowing* climate change (if one believed that CO2 were driving it)?
And the "other datasets match ours" excuse is wearing mighty thin by now given their creators seem to be just as incriminated.
Interview and interviewer were a total failure. No substance, no meat.
One sees what one wants to see. I scored it as a draw or a possible narrow points win for Bob Watson. But whatever the result, I can't see that Bob Watson came across as a buffoon. Following your remark, I have to say I'm less interested in reading your forthcoming book than I was.
Seem to be an aweful lot of proffessors at teh UAE !!!!!!
Monckton is a very good speaker (check out recent stuff on You Tube from him). The only problem I have with him is the "We don't need saving, since we were saved 2000 years ago." The moment that little gem comes out he turns into a prick.
Ross McKitrick had a good piece recently on the hockey stick:
Flawed climate data:
Only by playing with data can scientists come up with the infamous 'hockey stick' graph of global warming
http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988&p=1
Also, check out what the historical temperature looked like before the hockey stick:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/print.html
Neal, youre perfectly right of course, Monckton can be a devastatingly good speaker when he tries. Check out "Apocalypse No" on the net, where he addresses an audience of science students at the Cambridge Union and and does well - until the end when he tries to talk about western society's reaction to aids and brings out the fake tears - 90% genius and 10% prat in the same package - but its the 10% but bothers me
Has anyone ever assembled a list of these "thousands of scientist" that Watson makes mention of? I would like to see who has been receiving grant money for perpetuating fraud. I know Mckitrick makes no money, how about Watson?
That was not a balanced interview by no means. Watson was allowed to waffle on without interruption, yet Ross McKitrick was constantly interrupted.