Monday
Nov152010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill David Holland clip
Nov 15, 2010 BBC Climate: CRU Climate: Jones FOI As I mentioned a few days back, David Holland was recently interviewed for a BBC East Anglia programme about Climategate. There is a very short clip here.
Update on Nov 15, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
The full programme is now available here.
Reader Comments (19)
Curses! - I should have recorded this programme - it seems it isn't available on iPlayer. I watched it and the usual mentions of "Hacked" emails (we still haven't heard the outcome of the police investigation), and the 3 separate enquiries having cleared the CRU of any scientific bad practice, show the BBC are still on the warmist side of the debate.
I caught the very end when Dave was making his point about the science not being able to be reproduced...but otherwise forgot about the show being on tonight!
Mailman
"This content doesn't appear to be working. Please try again later"
If as I expect David gets to view this thread I would appreciate if he could clarify an aspect of his own starring role in the Climategate emails.
He initiated the following email chain on Monday 24th March
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=868&filename=1206628118.txt
I always thought it resulted from this Climateaudit thread
http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/25/chapter-6-in-press/
re the comment on 27th May by David "Why not ask the man?". However after review it is clear the dates dont match.
Given the subject line on the email says UK Weatherworld I went to that forum but despite using Google and the internet archive cant see an obvious thread to trigger the email on March 24 2008. The only thread I could find around that time was a few days later end March early April.
Whilst it probably wont change my view that people have been chasing the wrong guy I would like to know if I am missing a conversation from somewhere. Also why David did not mention he had already sent an email in the Climateaudit thread?
OT
Ok I know that given the source this might seem dubious.
Released by FOI the patent suppression list from 1973 that includes
"Fuel Conservation Technology" and
"Alternative Fuels".
as being subject to Suppression... also
"Pollution Reduction Technology" and
"Apparatus for Increasing Efficiency" and
"Hydrogen Enrichment Technologies".
Photo-voltaic panels "in excess of 20% efficient" !!
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6720-suppression-document-youtube.html
clivere,
The Deming (I mispelled it) thing was incidental to my real interest which centred on how the IPCC had kept the "hockey stick" against the weight of the evidence. I genuinely could not understand why Overpeck would not just deny he ever said "we must get rid of the MWP". He never replied to me, so on 27 May I was just suggesting someone else might ask him.
However, we now know from Climategate that Overpeck was not alone in wanting to get rid of the MWP. Briffa said he knew some people wanted to, and Fred Pearce tells us that in 1966 Tim Barnett "joined Phil Jones to form a small group within the IPCC to mine this data for signs of global warming". Pearce writes, "Even then they were looking for a hockey stick". I think that reading between the lines the IPCC Second Assessment Report suggests it.
The significant thing about the Deming affair is that Jones tells Overpeck that he knows all about my FOIA requests to Defra and the Met Office. Resisance to all disclosure was a well prepared position. Remember they stonewalled Steve M on Yamal during the review stage and tried very hard to bury the review comments. I feel sure that when they agreed at Bergen to move the publication deadline they knew then that tight control of the information on what had happenned was essential or there would be trouble. They very nearly got away with it.
Has anyone noticed that AR5 WGI TSU is trying to avoid the same problem by saying up front that they can cite papers that do not actually get accepted until three months after the end of the Expert Review stage. It does not say this in the schedule on the WGI website but it does in Stocker's ppt and it does here:
http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/IPCC_AR5_Timetable.pdf
David - I assume this is the Fred Pearce article you are referring to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-graph-ipcc-report
It contains the following "I visited Briffa at his lab at the CRU. He told me: "Five years ago, the climate modellers wanted nothing to do with the paleo community [scientist studying past climate]. But now they realise they need our data. We can help them define natural variability."
It would be interesting to know if "climate modellers" or the "Tim Barnett group" included Thomas Karl in particular or Ben Santer. Do you have any inside knowledge?
OT -- a commenter at Jeff Id's needs help responding to the ICO office re: his climategate FOIA request to EAU. #30 at http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/climategate-a-year-of-comedy/
does david know bbc has cherrypicked his comments for this:
15 Nov: BBC: Climategate: Sceptic sorry for UEA staff in scandal
(Holland) "I sat in on the select committee hearings - I was shocked," he said.
"I had never met Phil Jones [unit director] before then. He was certainly suffering greatly from it.
"No-one with any humanity could not feel extremely sorry for the guy and everyone at the University of East Anglia, because there's a lot of people who had nothing to do with it whose lives will have been interfered with.
"It is a great tragedy for them," he added...
A year on from the affair, where the UEA was cleared of exaggerating data on global warming but criticised for holding back its research from the public, the centre's work has been defended and Phil Jones reinstated as director.
"I regret we weren't as proactively transparent as we might have been, because as the Muir Russell report demonstrated conclusively we had nothing at all to hide," said Trevor Davies, pro-vice chancellor at the UEA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/norfolk/hi/people_and_places/nature/newsid_9190000/9190651.stm
apologies -
the first link bish put up wouldn't play in australia and i didn't see the link for the longer clip until now. that one does work and - apart from the use of 'hackers' and davies saying it's been proven they had nothing to hide - it's quite a reasonable piece from the Beeb; however, it does have the cherrypicked comments and headline i posted previously surrounding the longer clip, which is entirely misleading and extremely dishonest from my point of view.
ben webster seeking more sympathy for jones as the climategate anniversary nears, and again we hear how jones denies "deliberately" deleting emails:
16 Nov: Australian (from UK Times): Ben Webster: Climategate scientist Phil Jones regrets emails but stands by global warming conclusions
MANY people "want to be deceived" about climate change because they fear having to sacrifice their lifestyles, according to the "Climategate" scientist..
In his first significant interview since being reinstated at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Professor Jones said he had been a victim of an attempt to sabotage negotiations on a global climate change treaty...
He said he had recovered from the depression that had led him to contemplate suicide at the height of the controversy, when Sarah Palin and other politicians in the United States accused him of faking his research...
He said some of the doubters would finally be persuaded when the Arctic became ice-free in summer. But others would still believe false claims that this had happened before in the 1920s.
The majority would eventually be won over, but he added: "I don't know how long it's going to take. It's potentially going to take years."
He said he regretted some of the language in emails "sent in haste", particularly his reference to a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures.
An independent inquiry dismissed claims that this was evidence of an attempt to manipulate data...
He admitted that he should not have asked a colleague to delete correspondence but denied deliberately wiping his own emails to prevent them being published under the Freedom of Information Act...
He was particularly critical of George Monbiot, the environmentalist and newspaper columnist who called for his resignation soon after the e-mails were published. "He didn't retract it for months until after the Muir Russell review [the independent inquiry which exonerated him] came out and even then it was somewhat begrudging. To me it showed he didn't understand how science was done."...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/climategate-scientist-phil-jones-regrets-emails-but-stands-by-global-warming-conclusions/story-e6frg8y6-1225954228600
I just watched the recording. Though I'm sure that there will be individual points of dispute, for a general interest piece sandwiched between the cookery and the sport (I'm guessing), it seemed to do a reasonable job.
David came across well - as a sincere sort of Englishman wanting to play with a straight bat, and the dose of concern about Phil Jones's health was a nice touch. A minor criticism might be that garb might have been a bit too like Last of the Summer Wine. I guess it happens to us all...even me :-(.
Spurious bit of them drilling holes in trees didn't seem to add much to the discussion or the story. For me, as ever, the highlight was Trevor Davies the unacceptable face of acdeme. I wonder if he comes across as badly to others as he does to me.
And the closing summary wasn't bad for what it was intended to be. It certainly did not come down squarely on the side of evil Big Oil funded deniers preventing honest and truthful dedicated scientists from saving Mother Gaia from destruction by the forces of Western Capitalism. And the words 'Science is Settled' 'Consensus' did not appear as far as I can remember.
But I think its real significance was that the BBC made the programme at all. Rewind 53 weeks. In the run up to Copenhagen and before Climategate is it even conceivable that David would be allowed onto the telly? That anyone could question 'the science' on the BBC without being derided as a child destroying lunatic? Or with at least Bob Ward denouncing him as a deranged criminal.
An encouraging sign that there are signs of intellect still at the BBC. Even if only in Norfolk.
7/10
Clarification : I meant no disrespect to the fine county of Norfolk, nor its people, But it is not an insult to observe that, despite its many excellent other qualities, it is not one of the epicentres of power in the broadcasting world.
@ Pat: MANY people "want to be deceived" about climate change because they fear having to sacrifice their lifestyles, according to the "Climategate" scientist.
Well, exactly. Unless warming alarmists are prepared to disembark from the gravy train, they're very unlikely to recant any time soon.
clivere,
The Fred Pearce bit I was referring to is also on page 44 of his book, which incidentally and after you have read the Hockey Stick Illusion, is an important source for anyone trying to be objective on this matter.
Pat and Latimer,
Frankly, I would be happy to have let someone else do the interviews. For the whole day and 300 miles I got the princely sum of £80 by way of expenses. The script and my garb was their doing. I think they did not like my suit. This short segment had been planned over months and the bit about being sorry for Phil Jones is genuine. For reasons that are too long to go into here I have that feeling that there but for the grace of God .. .. It came up in a telephone call, but it was clear that they wanted to use it.
That said The BBC team were great - professional but friendly. However, I suspect they might have bosses less well disposed to our views.
thanx for the clarification, david.
there is nothing wrong with feeling empathy for jones and the crew, but yes, bbc did want to USE those quotes....and not in an honest manner.
interesting how all the phil jones rehab pieces to coincide with the climategate anniversary go for the sympathy vote.
An astonishing clip from the BBC.It's the first time I can recall anything from auntie on climate issues being anywhere near sane and sensible.
Firstly the clip appears in 2 places
1. The newspage item http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/norfolk/hi/people_and_places/nature/newsid_9190000/9190651.stm
and 2. The Segment in a Regional TVprogramme it plugged.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00c4dqv (begins 10 minutes in )
The news item is a travesty
Headed "Climategate: Sceptic sorry for UEA staff in scandal"..it's first message is "Mr Holland told BBC Inside Out he did not regret his enquiry, but felt sorry for the staff involved in the scandal.", you what ! Thats's the big story is it ? This is very strange since the last time I heard David Holland was a few weeks ago on Counterpoint Radio ABC Australia when he explained how the FOI office had just issued a judgement in his favour.
next says "A year on from the affair, where the UEA was cleared of exaggerating data on global warming" (bad English as well as an emotive loaded message)
and ended .."I regret we weren't as proactively transparent as we might have been, because as the Muir Russell report demonstrated conclusively we had nothing at all to hide," said Trevor Davies, pro-vice chancellor at the UEA.
The accompanying video clip is very slightly differently edited . ..It begins with shocking glacier footage and adds extra phrases after Holland's conclusion
OK the TV prog. We know the BBC is really onboard with the 6C (The Cult of Catastrophe is Certain to Come due to Climate Change) So I was astounded that David Holland was allowed this platform on the BBC albeit only on a regional programme in one of the most rural regions (The Look East news audience is between 300,000-850,000).
The intro text was .."In November 2009 the Climategate affair had the world questioning the science of global warming. Hackers revealed e-mails for the UEA climate research unit which seemed to suggest scientists had covered up vital data. The director of the unit went into hiding and the doors of the research unit were closed to the media. A year on David Whiteley is one of the first to be allowed inside the unit to see the work being carried out there now. And David Holland, one of the climate change doubters at the centre of the scandal, tells his story for the first time."
(Note how the BBC always use the emotive word "hackers" (with still no evidence).. but thank the person for choosing "doubter" not the more loaded terms like skeptic or "denier"
And no they did not let him tell his story ..They edited the footage to imply "his story" is that he is sorry people have suffered
The TV segment was a bit bizarre, It was the normal BBC propaganda, but just stayed the legal side.
Did you spot all the subliminal images amongst some emotive language : dark hacker figure, collapsing glacier, "a hacker broke in", burning oil towers, coastal erosion, huge smashing ocean, showed hockey stick graph, "so your saying sea levels won't rise dramatically", "alleged it was rigged to show..." "was it your intension to bring down ?"
There were some other points and video : "doubters targeted the CRU with 100 FOI requests in a year",
footage showed Phil Jones looking bad in MPs hearing,
"although the CRU team has been found not to fiddled with the data it has been told to be more open" incorrect the enquiries didn't tackle that issue
"Phil Jones has been reinstated, but the personal effect on him and other CRU members... "
"the CRU has been investigated 3 times and the science is still ... defended" (note he didn't say cleared)
The segment showing UEA scientist Tom Melvin collecting tree rings was strange "we can see see the effect of past climatic conditions"... but the he didn't say any conclusions (maybe they were trying to say how scientific the CRU is )
Then the CRU man said "we regret we weren't transparent as we might have been"
Despite the editing Holland was able to get some of his points in, beginning "The scientists weren't prepared to engage and play with a straight bat", and finishing with "this science that costs trillions of dollars simply isn't reproduceable"
and then the presenter concluded "the scientists have challenges", "this will remain a controversial subject"
I watched it live and then tried to watch again through Iplayer, but after the intro clip I always get the message "content doesn't seem to be working", downloads also stopped before it got to that point ( I hope someone has archived it, it gets wiped on 22nd of Nov) but before any conspiracy theories were confirmed it did become playable on 20th attempt.
Cherrypicking ? Thanks Pat I agree with you
I imagine that there are 2 people in the production team one who commissioned it and another who wanted to make sure that "skeptics" didn't get publicity..that's why the headline was bizarrely spun. Maybe the producer edited it for the "sorry" angle, but the presenter wasn't prepared to stoop to the normal emotive language.
Actually one way to look at is :
BBC Finally allow Climate Skeptic on TV
...... So he can say sorry for upsetting Phil Jones. ..
Glad to see that I am not alone.
The story of C02 goes like this.
We extract fuels and burn them thus releasing CO2 and that this CO2 wraps itself around the earth and creates the greenhouse effect.
If so how do we get frost?
For frost we generally need a clear sky which allows the heat from the earth to go to space, (remember the convention on heat transfer is that heat travels from hot to cold) this happens in the Sahara where temperature can dip below freezing.
If we were to build a giant thermos flask then the last gas you would insulate it with is CO2 which has a high thermal conductivity.
To see the minor effect of wind turbines have on our power supply, then go to the Neta website.http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp.php. The charts near the bottom show generation by fuel types.