Tuesday
Nov162010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill BBC shy about science review story
Nov 16, 2010 BBC Climate: other Mischievous reader Barry Woods has posted a couple of links to the BBC science review story on Richard Black's BBC blog. Unfortunately the moderators have deemed this kind of thing unacceptable and have removed the links.
It's a pity that one of the BBC's environmental reporters doesn't want to engage with the people who pay his salary on the subject of the BBC's coverage of green issues. It makes him look somewhat aloof, shall we say.
Update on Nov 16, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Commenters point out that Barry has a second comment, which seems to have passed muster. I wonder if Richard B will respond.
Reader Comments (20)
At 22.05 comment 17 was definitely in limbo, but No. 19 (with a link) was still there.
BBC policy is not to give publicity to those that doubt BBC policy. This guy is acting in accordance with BBC policy.
If ever challenged, he will say he was doing what he was told to do. Much like the Nazis did at Nuremburg.
It is a Fascist thing, I think
Surely Cancun is not needed and it can all be done with video conference?
Obama flies around with 10 planes and the rest of us should shower less, to pay for it, and save Gaia.
With some presumtion, I mailed a copy to a senior person in Australia who is associated with the national broadcaster, the ABC. I am told that the ABC is reworking its structures to deal with complaints and that a new person will be appointed - or has been.
The ABC has devised a set of internal rules that make it very difficult to navigate. It's hard to find someone who deals with all of radio, TV and bookshop. It's hard to find some one who will deal with "man bites dog" level and also with the level of harm that bad science does to a nation.
For passing interest, the ABC Act has a charter of functions, one of which is -
"(iii) the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs of wide appeal and specialized broadcasting programs". This is the entry point I have chosen to try to get some balance.
A first submission on an anti-chemistry theme went nowhere, so far. A copy is enlosed here.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/ABC%20Gardening%20Aug_10Copper.doc
I can only suggest that as many people who can make the effort to submit in their countries, do so. Numbers do count in the game.
Barry's asking nice questions
If someone 'hacked' and 'stole' the emails, who sent some of them emails to Paul Hudson?
Barry, you should either get a spelling checker or at least read your posts before sending them into the BBC. My god man, that is BEEB to which you are posting!
(Can't have a dangling preposition, can I? :)
I do recommend the trip to the blog. Barry has two posts as does Jack Hughes. A very ecumenical blog, for the BBC at least.
LOL - 12 months on and the Beeb still can't answer the questions -
who "forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October" to Paul Hudson?
(or) who forwarded the emails to the person who forwarded them to Paul Hudson?
precisely how many emails were in the "chain"?
may we see them pretty please?
oh, and why weren't they published at the time?
"hip" and "sexy" is more the Beeb's style these days:
17 Nov:BBC: Rajesh Mirchandani: Cameron downplays climate deal at Schwarzenegger event
Mr Cameron said: “We’re not going to get a global legally-binding deal at Cancun… eventually when you’ve got countries like Britain and maybe states in America that are leading the way on electric cars, on solar panels, on heat pumps… when other countries see the success of green growth and the green economy, even the laggards are going to say ‘hold on, I want a piece of this’.”…
Mr Schwarzenegger said: “We should not just rely on policy… what is important is that we make the general public buy in on this whole idea of going green.
“You’ve got to make it hip, you’ve got to make it sexy to be part of this movement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11771754
H'mm
Barry Woods has posted 3 comments. I checked their status and at 04:00 I found:-
#17 had been 'referred for further consideration'
#19 was entirely visible - with visible links to here and to ABC
#20 was entirely visible
I'm all for bashing the BBC when it writes rubbish or acts badly. But w/o seeing Barry's content, nobody can judge whether the referral is unjustified or not, Wait until he receives the justification before leaping to conclusions. So far, it has not been deleted, and may just be waiting for the day shift to come in.
In this case I think we cry wolf too loudly and might only reinforce a possible view that we sometimes obsess too much over minor things while missing the major. Cool it.
Nov 16, 2010 at 10:26 PM | golf charley
I think they are looking after their pension fund mate!
Latimer,
You only ever get a form letter from theblog moderators.
What gets my goat is how the mods will go back through closed threads deleting posts they don't like and then tell you it was off topic through a form letter.
Personally, if I was in charge of the BBC the first thing I would do is close down all the blogs. I mean tell me, when was the last time anyone saw any reporter like black engage in discussion in their blogs? The simple fact is al beeb has been reporting it's opinion as if it's opinion is the news!
Mailman
Blunderbunny, at comment 2 in the referenced piece wrote: "Better still, build a single headquarters somewhere you wouldn't want to go on holiday and go there, Bradford for instance (Apologies to any Residents of Bradford, but you have to admit it's not a world wide tourist mecca)."
He may have inadvertently come up with a brilliant idea, noting that Bradford's locally known as Bradistan! Having heard of complaints that going to the Haj in Saudi Arabia is now too expensive for most ordinary people, perhaps there's an opportunity for Bradford in there somewhere?
There was a time when Richard Black used to reply to some of the comments on his blog. I haven't seen him do it for months. I think he stopped doing it after an article he wrote about "deniers" and he got a furious backlash telling him he should resign immediately. Can anyone remember the article? Does anyone one know his qualifications? He has always refused to answer questions about his background.
pat @ Nov 17, 2010 at 1:46 AM and others...
Has anyone asked under FOI for the email chain sent to Paul Hudson? Is it in the remit of the act?
Nov 17, 2010 at 8:36 AM | Derek Walton
Should have added: I'm happy to do it, just wondered if anyone had already done so....
Derek
It would fall under the journalism exemption to the FOI act, so I don't think they would have to release it.
I doubt the police would answer "who sent some of them emails to Paul Hudson" But maybe they would confirm if he had been "helping with enquiries".
Has anyone pointed it out to them? when was the last word from Norwich Police? Are we really a year on and still nothing?
Paul Hudson received 'a chain of emails' on 12th October 2009.
In the East Anglia Escape there are only three emails with "BBC U-turn on climate" in the subject that could have been forwarded to him at that time. The most comprehensive one is 1255352257 which includes the text of the other two.
From those initial emails there are 13 names. Which one (if any) was Judas?
There were a number of emails embedded as replies, I imagine it could have included all the responses as well..
The mssing comment below at the BBC, I complained about a previous commentor using 'deniar' and included some quotes from the Guardian, and made a bad joke about Romm-ulans - Climate Progress, ie they attacked Richard - his When Warmists attack blog article. Can't see really why it was removed for consideration. (it never actually appeared in the frst place)
Comment 17 (awaiting consideration at the BBC)
Can we report 'deniers' as hate speech it really is unecessary - Roger Harrabin has said he doesn't like it.. If the knee jerk repsonse to any discussion is to use that word, it is impossible to have a debate...
Welcome back Richard - I'd thought the Romm-ulans had got you, because they thought your blog was such a hotbed of scepticism!
Another good book is 'Climategate - The Crutape letters', and 'The Hockey Stick Illusion', please tell me someone on the BBC environment team has read them..
And I agree - Fred Pearce's book is very good, whilst having a slight warmist perspective. I've been called a denier for asking some of the questions Fred made in his book.
Submission to the BBC science review
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/11/16/submission-to-the-bbc-science-review.html
"Our first reaction was to write to Professor Richard Tait, the trustee who was fronting this project, requesting that we should make a submission to the review and pointing out that the main critics of the BBC coverage of AGW were in the blogosphere. Not only were we unable to get a reply form Professor Tait, but we were unable even to get confirmation from the secretary of the Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee that he had been given the letter. This will be the subject of another post."
The full submission is at Bishop Hill.
Whatever happens at Cancun, the hard economic real world politics means that China and India wil burn all their coal to generate electricity. To think otherwise is living in a green fantasy land..
The Guardian nailed this last December.. (my CAPS)
Guardian:How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal?I was in the room
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas
" But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on CHEAP COAL. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its COAL-based economy DOUBLES EVERY DECADE, and its POWER increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away."
People pretend to themselves that Climategate scuppered Copenhagen, the reality was it was never going to happen.
Guardian:
"The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen."
"What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".
China and India will burn their coal to get out of poverty, the West will not stop them.
pat @ Nov 17, 2010 at 1:46 AM and others...
Has anyone asked under FOI for the email chain sent to Paul Hudson? Is it in the remit of the act?
Nov 17, 2010 at 8:36 AM | Derek Walton
Should have added: I'm happy to do it, just wondered if anyone had already done so....
Bish replied:
Derek
It would fall under the journalism exemption to the FOI act, so I don't think they would have to release it.
But isn't Paul Hudson a meteorologist, and technically a Met Office employee who is seconded to the BBC? It could be possible to argue that he is not a professional journalist, just a weather forecaster with a blog? Maybe worth a shot?
Go for it, if you think it's worth a try.