Bishop Hill A BBC approach to NASA
Here's the fair and balanced BBC approaching NASA for an interview, in another email from the NASA collection.
From: James Morgan-GW
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:00:21 +0100
To: Leslie.M.McCarthy
Subject: BBC TV seriesDear Lesley,
I am a researcher from the BBC, in the UK. I am developing a landmark television series, looking at the effects of artificial chemicals (all things toxic!) on our environment on a global scale. It will be the ultimate global health check - an update on where we stand now, 45 years since Rachel Carson wrote her influential and controversial book Silent Spring. Using similar headings as Carson for the chapters in her book, the six episodes will be as follows:
Planet
Oceans (and Rivers)
Humans
Insects, Soils and Funghi
Animals, Birds & Fish
Our Green Mantle (trees, plants etc)
Regarding the first episode, "Planet", I am keen to speak to NASA scientists who are using satellites to measure atmospheric pollution from space. Your colleague Rob, in the Goddard media relations office, has recommended four scientists, who you may be able to put me in touch with:James Hansen
Drew Schindel
Gavin Schmidt
Reto ReudyI am keen to get a clear and informed idea of how the Earth has changed in the past four decades, how NASA is measuring these changes, and how we could illustrate these changes in a TV programme in the future. Also, I would like to know about any new and positive developments where chemicals which have been a problem in the atmosphere have been remedied by new and advanced methods?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
James
Can anyone tell the difference between James and a green campaigner?
Reader Comments (20)
Odd email to release in the package so probably got trawled in by accident. Dont think it tells us anything more about the BBC perspective that we did not already know.
"Can anyone tell the difference between James and a green campaigner?"
Nope, and neither can Auntie
I expect the boy has got a BA in an "ology" from the University of Neasden or some such excuse for higher education. I did enjoy the "new & advanced methods" bit. Top comedy!
I can't see much wrong with that. All things green are trendy (or they were in 2007) and it's a decent hook on which to hang a series that would 'inform, educate and entertain' while boosting the supposedly all-important ABC1 ratings.
Rachel Carson? That says it all.
Coincidentally, http://news.bbc.co.uk/ have yet another methane clathrate story up since about the time these were released. Remarkably the paper it reports on finished it's study in 2007. Thick as thieves.
Thanks for your excellent work.
And you Brits pay tele tax to pay for twits like this one?
What is it now -- £100? I agree ROI is no better, but there is a message here -- dump the BBC (and RTE). Let them earn their keep.
How refreshing! Someone who has genuine green concerns about genuine problems rather than the madeup 'problem' of global warming (I've decided to stick to global warming instead of the new 'climate change').
I would really like to see such a programme about real problems.
I suspect he'll find that little if any progress has been made re advanced technologies for dealing with problem chemicals because all the money has been diverted to climate study.
It is odd that those scientists have been recommended. After all, they don't have time for sceptics or complying with FOI requests so why would they have time for a TV doc?
That one jumped out for me too in the e-mails and I was dumbfounded by his expression - "artificial chemicals (all things toxic!) " which epitomises a really dumb level of scientific understanding and the journalistic clamour for sensation.
Just wondering what he means by "funghi"?
Wonder if they asked Bjorn Lomborg whose book The Skeptical Environmentalist published in 2001 did the whole business?
It's addressed 'To Leslie' and then he says 'Dear Lesley'. Careless..
Don Pablo has the answer.
Ditch your TV and stop paying the licence fee at the first available oportunity.
Trust me on this, you won't miss it.
"the difference between James and a green campaigner?"
Aint any.
@ Jack Hughes:
his spelling of 'funghi' indicates to me that he's spent too much time and money in Italian restaurants ...
Differences? The occasional Green campaigner appears to have some knowledge of the subject they are lecturing on. James appears to have nothing more detailed or recent than having read the chapter headings of Silent Spring.
Would this be the same NASA who have been caught fiddling the figures and "losing" temperature data from 75% of the previously included stations, to make it appear, er, warmer? Maybe they'll give poor James some pointers...
"artificial chemicals"
Nasty things - much prefer those nice wholesome natural ones.
"a landmark television series"
"the ultimate global health check"
Modest little chap, isn't he?
"Can anyone tell the difference between James and a green campaigner?"
The green campaigner has admitted to his interests.
James is a classic "urban-eco". For him the environment is a lovely abstract idea. It's probably in another country like the Amazon rain forest or in Africa. It's something on a TV screen or a super picture in a coffee-table book. It's whatever David Attenborough is looking at.
His list of "trees, plants, etc" - he might as well write "trees and stuff". He has no knowledge and probably no real interest in any actual environment.