Tuesday
Oct052010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Lindzen on the BBC
Oct 5, 2010 BBC Climate: Sceptics Richard Lindzen is interviewed on the BBC. Haven't had a chance to listen myself yet.
(H/T Lubos)
Oct 5, 2010 BBC Climate: Sceptics
Reader Comments (37)
A jolly good performance it is too......I'd love to hear an interview between Lindzen and Manbigot tho....
I emailed the following comment:
"You preceded this interview with a synopsis of the history of climate “science” – interesting that you airbrushed out the “global cooling” scare – the Lavrentiy Beria of climate science.
Great man. Lindzen, I mean, not Beria.
"
re Confused:
I like that MANBIGOT!
Finally a true, accurate and hopefully permanent soubriquet for the low life concerned.
Peter Walsh
First time that I have heard Lindzen speak, must admit I am impressed by his level headedness. We should have more of him on the Beeb, it would be interesting to hear the so called 'young' scientific reporters come up against someone of his statuture, I am certain that it would be a learning experience for them.
One of the great things about Lindzen is that he communicates by speaking slowly and clearly. One of the terrible things about Lindzen is that he communicates by speaking slowly and clearly. With the best will in the world, I suspect the BBC couldn't afford to give Lindzen the airtime needed to get his extremely well-defined and clear points across. He's far too contemplative for radio or TV.
Contrast this with Bob Watson, who hardly ever finishes his sentences. Heck, Watson hardly ever even finishes the words in his sentences. But even though he's fullacrap, he's nevertheless highly sound-bite-able, and thus attractive to the Beeb.
On the plus side anyone listening, that recognises that Lindzen's words have intrinsic value, can find and read his papers and watch Youtube videos of his presentations to flesh out their understanding of his position.
I love the part when the interviewer brings up the Stern report whilst asking about the "precautionary principle". Lindzen (and me) gave a derisive laugh!
I thought Lindzen fielded the spikes, the loaded questions, the misleading introduction, the encouragements to alarmism and polarization, with great wisdom, steadiness, and good humour. I appreciated deeply his adoption of the term "denier", not least because he comes from European Jews himself. He denies that there is a serious problem with AGW, or even a problem at all - and nobody can fault his knowledge base or his funding or his right to use the word "denier" with pride.
A warm thank-you, Prof Lindzen. I'll thank the BBC when I see actual evidence of integrity returning.
Lindzen was terrific: Precise, measured, calm and good humoured. He exemplified what it means to be a scientist in his disposition and style. The questions posed by the interviewer simplistic and largely irrelevant. It would have been nice to have at least heard how Lindzen's latest research was going and whether it was having impact on his assessment of climate sensitivity. The questions posed by the listeners were juvenile, ill-informed and loaded. Since the producers of the program chose the questions and the narrator asked them - one can but wonder at the objectives of the program.
Pete H:
I agree. Lindzen's rebuttal of the precautionary principle was priceless and well worth the time spent.
This interview is a reminder that it is not just the IPCC report that needs constant challenging, but also Nicholas Stern's.
Horton on the IPCC reports, “the most carefully studied piece of science ever”
Carefully studied.....CAREFULLY STUDIED!
Carefully manipulated surely.
Lindzen's great, cool calm and collected. Voice of reason. Laughing at the Stern prospectus may invoke the Wrath of Bob, but then Ward vs Lindzen is a debate I'd love to see.
Houghton ......whoops
It was refreshing to hear a true scientist of the old school answering questions in a measured and meaningful way.
I used to be a great fan of the BBC's Horizon programme which used to have discussions like this all the time. Sadly, all they now provide is irrational people who want publicity for their claims that they need to 'Save the Ocean' or something similar. In fact it inspired me to follow a scientific career in biology. I look at my children and think they are now poorly served in terms of science on the BBC. The programmes it produces now have to be 'sexed' up and made more dramatic, partly because they need to 'entertain' and not to inform. Just look a the scientists they always go for. Brian Cox, that tw*t from Plymouth..good looking, sexy, wity.... whatever. Usually, with an agenda.
Most scientific research is long hours spent measuring the length of an insects wing, or analysing samples on some obscure piece of apparatus. Or freezing you knack**rs off half a mile from the shore sampling sand.
Bring back the uglies I say ! and let's get informed..not just entertained
I think the entertaining part has been pushed far.too far
Hehe, nice answers to the BBC's yes or no questions at the start of the interview :)
Mailman
Prof Lindzen showed poise and elegant articulation on behalf of reason and science.
Note: He was recently invited to a meeting of the French Academy of Science; their report on climate science is due out later this month. Could we possibly have the French leading the world to a first ever renaissance in climate science? The RS didn’t even try.
John
Despite the right-on and gormless interviewer, I get the impression that the Beeb might be dipping a toe in the waters of distancing itself from the climate change mania. Just exploring the possibility of being a little less gung-ho and altering the message.
We'll look back at these interviews in a decade or two's time, and the assessment given here of his unflappable, good-humoured and generally _wise_ attitude will only be reinforced, in my humble opinion. In fact, one could say that the ability to respond in such a genial manner to such silly questioning on such a serious subject is an almost defining characteristic of a very fine intellect. I can't remember the last time I had to get out the sick-bag on account of sentiments expressed in one of my own comments, but after Splattergate earlier this week it's a breath of fresh air. Long live climate science!
if you don't like listening to bbc radio apart from lindzen: he is in 2 parts at 6mins and 21:30.
I took-up the invitation (given by the presenter at the end of the programme) to write to the BBC asking for another, longer programme with Richard Lindzen; but this time with 'proper' questions.
What a superb programme it will make.
Lindzen superb as always. Totally unflappable, and I think that gets through even to those who are predisposed to denigrate him.
I could almost feel the hostility of the interviewer. But no matter, to Lindzen, it's all water off a duck's back.
Richard Black mention' 'splattergate' briefly...
Buries it in an article about China..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/10/this_week_marks_a_first.html#comments
Richard Black BBC:
"Climate change has always been a difficult push for campaigners - and as the years go by, a number of different tacks are inevitably tried, some with more success than others.
Into the "others" category come June's incident with the Saudi Arabian flag and the German toilet bowl - and, last week, the video message from the 10:10 campaign that saw children in a classroom being erased from the register of life if they didn't sign up to urgent climate action."
Richard Black BBC:
'erased from the register of life"
Maybe people reading will not realise what actually happened, compared to if he says this... (blood gore, body parts, splatter.)
Even the Guardian said what happened in it, they thought it very funny...
Interestingly, overwhelmingly the comments did not (the BBC said split - implying equally)
Quote from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film
"Had a look?
Well, I'm certain you'll agree that detonating school kids, footballers and movie stars into gory pulp for ignoring their carbon footprints is attention-grabbing. It's also got a decent sprinkling of stardust – Peter Crouch, Gillian Anderson, Radiohead and others."
So even the Guardain could say bloody pulp, and the classmates that agreed were also traumatised covered in cgore and body parts (check out Gillian Anderson's eyeballs slidingdown the screen at the end....
My childs' infant school, WAS signed up to 10:10
It took precisley 1 minute and 12 seconds, for the Headteacher to contact 10:10 withdrawing all support, and would never be dealing with them again...
"Even the Guardian said what happened in it, they thought it very funny...
Interestingly, overwhelmingly the comments did not (the BBC said split - implying equally)"
The Guardian has truly lost it, imo.
"that saw children in a classroom being erased from the register of life"
To me, this wording is actually quite spooky, and actually probably much more in line with the authoritarian tone of the film. 'Erased' is how an authoritarian dictator might view blowing people up. The act is unimportant, its about getting people crossed off the list.
Sorry, but in hindsight I do think this is funny...
10 reasons to support 10:10
"10:10 gives you more bang for your buck..."
I bet he wishes he had not made that video...
Lindzen is voice of calm and reasonableness in a sea of alarmism. He came over very well. Apart from his laughing at Stern and deriding Houghton, I particularly liked his view on the "thousands of climate scientists". In actuality, there are very few genuine scientists who understand and study the climate. Most of them are sceptics (or deniers or realists in Lindzen speak) and are physicists, since the science of the climate is a small sub-branch of physics. Geology tells us about past climate, but the behaviour of the climate is pure physics; it obeys the conservation laws.
As someone who worked for years studying and calculating complex thermal-hydraulic system behaviour, I am in no doubt that CO2 plays a vanishingly small part in the climatic behaviour, which is dominated by the sun and the water cycle, with thousands of other minor varaibles to consider. To even think that we can begin to calculate the behaviour of the climate wirth any degree of confidence, when so little of the climate is understood, with a system that is so complex and with no validation of the results, is as laughable as the Stern report.
@Stu and Barry, in that video I posted just above, Ian Katz (senior Journalist at the Guardian) is mentioned in the same breath as Franny, Lizzie, and Eugenie. The Guardian have no credibility on this issue.
I just went through that video with my wife, it did have us laughing... "zeitgeist" indeed...
Lindzen is superb. The interviewer is a bit rubbish to be honest. One interesting aspect is that this is a program on the BBC World Service and not the Beeb domestic output. The WS program is made by the Beeb but I think is funded by uk.gov, the Foreign Office ?
Key aspects for me:
Lindzen on being labelled a skeptic - (roughly 8 min in) 'to be skeptical assumes [there is] a strong presumptive case, but you have your doubts. I think we are dealing with a situation where there is not a strong presumptive case.'
Interviewer - 'You know there are tens of thousands of scientists...'
Lindzen - 'a few years ago you would never have believed there were tens of thousands of climate scientists...' and then goes on to explain why scientists studying other things add climate change to 'their thing' to get funding.
And then later the Stern Report is dismissed as 'his manifesto'.
The scary thing for alarmists must not be that these people are getting air time, but is that when 'skeptics' are put in front of cameras or microphones they are not foaming at the mouth angry mad people but reasonable and articulate people putting forward a reasoned argument with a sound sense of uncertainty.
This is a growing trend - Steve MacIntyre on the Gaurdian Climategate 'debate' (spoiled by Moonbat TBH), Lindzen, and of course the Bish's own guesting in front of (*sigh - remembers the good old days) 'Fiesty Kirsty' on Newsnight.
Its enough to make JoAbess explode. Oops I didn't mean that literally of course.
It does contrast with what brought me into looking into this more closely, it was that appearence on Newsnight by Moonbat about 4-5 years ago when he was 'prepared to accept' that Nuclear was needed to meet CO2 targets. He seemed like he had been forced into it. And being honest (IMHO not anyone else's) seemed to have been at the Sherry beforehand.
I was astonished at the leading questions, biased preliminary statements, and generally lopsided orientation of the interviewer. He was simply trying to get agreement from Lindzen on his point of view and seeming to have to restrain himself. They've got to find a neutral journalist! You can't trust the news if the journalist is on one side of it.
Outstanding Lindzen
I was not not aware of him as a Nobel prize winner - apart from sharing the IPCC award ?
The interviewer looked like embarrassed by each calm answer by Richard, as to Houghton and Stern for exemple
a five star performance
Much pain, No gain : an informed summary of climate policy
Oct 5, 2010 at 9:14 PM | John A
"I was astonished at the leading questions, biased preliminary statements, and generally lopsided orientation of the interviewer."
I actually saw this as helping the case for Lindzen, as he of course managed to hold and articulate himself beautifully in every response. By focusing on the 'many against the few' aspect of the weighted opinion amongst climate scientists and having him clear all that up rather nicely by pointing out the absurdity of the actual numbers, was pretty delightful. The interviewer was atleast polite, which was also nice.
I actually did as the BBC suggested and went to their Facebook (why?!) page, where I found this:
http://audioboo.fm/boos/193368-everyone-seems-so-angry
Shall definitely be writing in with a non-angry "more Lindzen please".
A voice of reason in the media wilderness
If you think Lindzen was impressive in this interview you should really see this lecture of his:
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/f.htm
Such a presumptuous and superficial interview from the biased BBC
Why did they have to spoil a good, interesting interview with a genuine and honest scientist, to twitter on about bloody pot plants?
The tone of the questions was the sort when the BBC interviews some thug from the BNP.
I presume he the interviewer was terrifed of what his BBC bosses and colleagues would say to him if he conducted a proper interview.
Pea-sized frogs?
You know who studies cockroaches and rodents and climate change?
http://terryroot.stanford.edu/
Watch the video on the page.