Tuesday
Feb162010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill A comment from Roger Harrabin
Feb 16, 2010 BBC Climate: CRU Climate: Jones Roger Harrabin, writing in the comments to this thread, has clarified the arrangements for his interview with Phil Jones. You may remember that there was a rumour that although the interview appeared to have been undertaken in writing, there was in fact a recording as well but that this had been squashed by the BBC bigwigs because Jones didn't come over well.
Roger H's comment is as follows:
Professor Jones agreed the interview with me on the strict condition that it was not broadcast. I pressed to do TV and radio but was refused. The university say he is not well enough to do a broadcast interview. The BBC kept the deal. For the BBC news website interview I sought questions from several prominent climate sceptics.
Make of it what you will.
Reader Comments (39)
If that was the case it was the case and I for one am prepared to accept the gentleman's word that it was so.
Whether that was the right thing for the BBC to agree to is another matter.
Kindest Regards
"I sought questions from several prominent climate sceptics"
That what I thought. Harrabin's interview questions to Jones was too unusually pertinent to be from himself or from someone of the BBC.
Maybe that is fair enough.... ( no statistical warming for 15 years, is enough of a confession)
However a simple few questions for Roger, to check his good will
Ask him whether he has had a proper read through of Harry_read_me.txt for himself.. ie getting the code to work for hadcru 3.0, following hadcru 1.2,2.0
Similaly, has he read the:
Climategate analysis, John P Costela.
or the weather station analysis: at watts up.
Or Moshers: Climategate crutapes
finally, ask him about the use of propaganda films..
is he comfortble with this.
ie onrushing tidal waves engulfing the land and small children. (copenhagen opening video, repeated on the bbc, uncritically) When the rate of even the predicted by the icc. is 6mm a YEAR..
I'm still A FLAT EARTHER, SCEPTIC, DENIAR, according to my politicians..
Maybe the bbc could educate them.
Thanks. Careful reading of Mr Harrabin's comment shows that he does not state whether the interview was recorded or not; only that it was not to be broadcast
I don't doubt Roger H's word here. It's just a bit odd to record an interview on the understanding that it was not to be broadcast and then do an email interview as well.
Could be that Roger H did the live interview and then put supplementary questions provided by sceptics to Jones' answers.
Let's give these guys some credit, they've accepted the warmist line given the number of "scientists" supporting it and the fact that the huge number of papers either ignoring it, or refuting it have received no publicity. My sense is that Roger H is trying to balance that imbalance.
Looks like the Muir inquiry isn't even trying to conceal the planned snow job on Jones and co.,so maybe it will be reporters, such as Roger H who'll keep pushing for the truth.
It looks like priests of Real Climate feel they need to do some damage limitation over the Phil Jones interview:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/
As ever with RC, it's the frenzied comments which make for the funniest reading.
As someone diagnosed as "clinically depressive" I can have sympathy for Phil's mental state ie; being suicidal. However I can also attest to the fact that he would be incapable of remaining at work in any capacity. Neither would he be capably of giving a considered interview and perhaps this is why the interview seems so out of character. I would suggest he retire immediatly in order to best assist his mental well being. At his age, I imagine the prognosis, short term, would not favour sufficient recovery to see him recover his previous stature.
I support the suggestion that we express appreciation towards Roger Harrabin. However he achieved it, he secured some very important 'on the record' statements from Dr Jones. Clearly he must observe the negotiated terms relating to the interview.
It is refreshing to see the BBC take a serious interest in these matters, and both Roger and the BBC should be recognised for delving into the issue. Likewise to the UK press. Although belated, their critical questioning is very important, and far ahead of other MSM, particularly in the US and Australia.
Thanks to Mr Harribin for the comment, I take it at face value. I think Prof. Jones has been caught in the cogs of big politics, and that is a juggernaught that takes no prisoners, so I feel for him on the personal level. Mann and the statistics of the reconstructions need to be thoroughly examined now, and I'm not sure that any of the inquiries are really on that scent yet. The Select committee is probably the best placed to shine a light there, but not sure if they are listening either. The Boulton enquiry is now a dead duck in terms of credibility.
Jones plays the "Absent-Minded-Professor" card and everyone believes him.
Jones's ability to delibrately hide things and delete things proves that he is no Professor Plum.
Recording an interview for the purpose of maximising clarity and understanding, but with the proviso that it not be for broadcast, is an absolutely normal process in journalism. Roger's explanation should be accepted without reservation.
Note to Mr Harrabin.
You will be aware, on sites like this, that your role as a serious journalist has been questioned over the last couple of years based upon a general " sceptic" view that you and the BBC have completely failed to perform even basic investigative journalism and that you have towed, unquestioningly, the "alarmist" line.
You will note that your contact wih Anthony Watts on WUWT lead to a thread where your basic, personal motivations were questioned and a lot of "he is not to be trusted" comments were posted in response - which is an odd position for a journalist to find himself.
Your more recent articles and your Q & A with Phil Jones may well be interpreted as indications of proper journalistic standards perhaps being restored by you and the BBC. Until now, Andrew Neil has been ploughing a lone furrow in the BBC in questioning and bringing scientists to account. In addition, I have noted Newsnight's more balanced items of late and even Today on Radio 4 is at least addressing the issues (even though there is usually still the caveat with respect to the "consensus").
If you want to get your jounalistic teeth into something, may I suggest you do a piece on the make-up of the panel on the Muir Russel enquiry. To get you started, have a look at Steve McIntyre's Climates Audit site and his posts timed at 11.03, 1.41 and 2.19 on 15th February 2009. Is what McIntyre writing true? Is it worthy of reorting in the context of he broader debate?
Your article need not have anything to do with the alarmism/denialist issues - just a journalistic piece that takes the statements made about the make up of the panel and compare and investigate with the actuality (with particular reference to Mr Boulton's complete "neutrality").
Unless I am missing something, it looks like a good story for a "questioning" journalist that might want to bring the "establishment" to account.
On the other hand, it may cause you a few difficulties with your mates - best leave it alone eh!
SimonH
Is that right? Still seems a bit odd to me though.
It's also interesting to compare this to Cool Dude's comment on the previous posting that senior editors were involved in the decision not to broadcast the interview. Those of a suspicious mind might point out that Roger H doesn't actually deny the involvement of senior editors in his comment here.
The recording of interviews is common even if they are not to be broadcast. As SimonH stated, it allows the answers to be checked to ensure accuracy but also provides evidence should the interviewee claim he was misquoted.
Mr Harrabin
Further to my previous comment above, I have just read your article posted this morning on the BBC site. You write:
"
The independent Russell review will extend to examining the methodology behind part of the controversial Hockey Stick graph which has become the emblem of global warming theory."
I say again, why not do a piece on "independent" nature of the panel?
If the BBC is just keeping its word, bravo: propriety is so unusual at the Beeb. Now, wouldn't some propriety on Global Warming be welcome?
Harry Hodge makes a good point.
I wrote to a prominent and suitable BBC journalist on Friday Feb 12th about the Boulton conflict of interest issue, including a link to the "More Boulton" post here, but I received no reply, and as far as I can see the BBC has not covered the issue at all.
Some of you are being far too kind and, dare I suggest, gullible. You need to realise what you are up against here.
Yep, 'fraid so :) It's really as much for the protection of the journalist as anything, as Wansbeck indicates.
Just as in climate science, it's infinitely preferable to KEEP your complete, raw dataset even if (inexcusable in climate science, but essential in journalism) what you serve up is cherry-picked excerpts of the collected data. ;o)
Regarding senior BBC editors' involvement, I suspect this speaks more to the bureaucratic structure of the Beeb than it does anything else.
It may also speak to a caged posturing of Jones and the UEA, and I can easily imagine that in order to get an interview with Jones at all, a senior ed. might have had to weigh in with assurances that Roger H's recording would not hit the airwaves.
My own observations show quite clearly that there is an overall "warming trend" in BBC reporting. My personal sense of decency and integrity determines and asserts that this is wholly unacceptable. However, the suggestion that there is something strange and unusual about Harrabin agreeing not to broadcast a recorded interview is a red herring nevertheless. If you want to take a bite out of the BBC's butt for its biases, this simply isn't one of the Beeb's butt-cheeks.
My interest in the WHOLE topic of climate science revolves around exposing and eliminating advocacy research, replacing bad data and alarmism with good data and a sound and rational response, and restoring confidence in the integrity of sciences generally. A big and erroneous reaction to the UEA:BBC recording agreement is unhelpful in achieving this goal. I hate having to deal with baseless conspiracy theories and I think that collectively we can do far better than pursue this one.
I think I'm with cool dude. The BBC has had so many representations in the past, as has Roger, without the slightest evidence that they were prepared to be more balanced. Are we witnessing some high level politicking going on here, as the issue of Climate Change is at the heart of the erosion of democracy in this country and the west in general. If this edifice crumbles then I predict it won't stop just with climate change, but will spread to the EU which currently is hell bent on forcing each and every country into cutting carbon emissions, and through all of central and local government with all the jobs that are on the back of preventing climate change. And there will be more than just a little collateral damage.
I think that Roger is no more than a pawn in the big game, although he will protest he is not. I believe that the BBC is helping smooth the way for the Russell review to be a whitewash with Jones singled out as the sacrificial scapegoat.
If the public win this battle for greater accountability, as it is pressing for with MP’s expenses, it will give greater Political power to those few Politicians who have long been calling for changes at the BBC. So many vested interests will be chipping in to minimise the damage and head off a complete revolt.
Well it's revealed that the BBC's pension fund is heavily dependent upon the perpetuation of climate fear, so I don't think that the cause of the BBC's inherent reporting bias is really much of a mystery. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/156703/-8bn-BBC-eco-bias-
I will take the BBC's climate reporting a lot more seriously if and when they move their pension fund assets. Not much point in leaving them where they are, after all!
Some of you are missing the point. My information is that there was no agreement not to air the jones interview. It was not aired because he did not come across well. That is utterly scandalous.
My opinion of Mr Harrabin as a science journalist has never been very high because of the way he as pitched the BBC's coverage of climate science over the past few years (i.e. a reluctance to report anything that questions the catastrophic AWG narrative). His current attempt to reconcile the issues and give 'skeptics' a fair hearing seem, to me, more like an attempt to protect himself against future investigations of bias, rather than a genuine desire to redress the balance.
Having said all that, his recent call for an "armistice"...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8516905.stm
...contains a statement that leaves me almost speechless in both it's arrogance and audacity:
"So what about the assertion from some politicians and science bureaucrats "the debate is over"? Well most (though not all) sceptics agree that increased atmospheric CO2 is heating the Earth."
Is this really as condescending as I think it is, or am I just being over sensitive?
If it's what he thinks, he displays only how little time and attention he has paid over the years to the other side of the argument.
A thought. About a week ago Roger H appealed to WUWT for the names of climate science sceptics in the UK. My guess is that he wanted to get the questions to ask Jones and needed sceptics to ask the difficult questions. Looks like it worked.
After so long as the BBC's Environment "Analyst" it's quite shameful that he needed to ask. He should have had a contacts book full of them.
"I think Prof. Jones has been caught in the cogs of big politics"
I'd have more sympathy if I didn't believe that wanting to retain have and retain having "big politics" hang upon their every word wasn't a big part of the problem here. All that funding, all that top table influence - one can't risk all that by letting people see the shambolic state of the data that you've been wanting to base world-changing decisions on. (I'm being charitable - there may well be other reasons why he wanted to obfuscate the 20th century temperature record, but it's always conceivable that Jones may not have been party to those (though he must surely have suspected?)).
"Well most (though not all) sceptics agree that increased atmospheric CO2 is heating the Earth."
What's the opposite of a "strawman"? A strawman is an irrelevant but easily demolished argument that you ascribe to your opponent and then refute to show that he's wrong. This is kind of the opposite, picking a true but irrelevant argument which you claim that your opponent agrees with and hence infer that you must be at least partly correct. AGWers are notoriously fond of offensive strawmen e.g. "sceptics don't believe in climate change" but over the last couple of weeks they suddenly seem to have fallen back on this defensive variety e.g. the basic science of global warming is beyond dispute.
And of course, as with a traditional strawman, using it is a classic sign of knowing you have a weak argument. The real questions are not whether increased CO2 is adding some heating effect but whether this effect on climate is a) significant, b) catastrophic or even c) understood.
The university is his doctor?
Roger Harrabin had two interviews with Professor Jones, one via email (stretching over several days and published online), and an earlier recorded one (and not yet published).Prior to the recorded interview Jones made it clear that he did not want it aired. Harrabin did use one answer from this interview in The Today Programme ( with an actor's voice filling in for Jones), and at the end of the program he said more was coming (presumably from the recorded interview). The question is why has the recorded interview by Harrabin not yet appeared in print? Was it blocked by the BBC management, or is it something else?,.
Phil A. a good point but I would just add that I think we will find that when all the dust settles, that open minded scientist will study CO2 concentrations with greater vigour and scientific rigour, and apply greater application in determining where all the CO2 comes from and some of the figures we now take for granted may find themselves consigned to history just as the "global temperature" is now demonstrated to be an artefact of statistical manipulation.
I don’t think that majority of sceptics agree that CO2 is causing warming at all, but because it is just as impossible to disprove the theory as prove it given current technology and understanding, it is convenient to agree and concentrate on the temperature as this is something we can readily quantify, and something we all know does not currently correlate well.
Phil A, you expressed the roots of my concern exactly when you say "The real questions are not whether increased CO2 is adding some heating effect but whether this effect on climate is a) significant, b) catastrophic or even c) understood."
Harrabin is not just any old science journalist, he's the "BBC environment analyst" and so must understand that these are the 'skeptics' real concerns -- I cannot believe he's so ignorant of the facts or that this is just clumsy wordsmithing. This is why I consider his statement to be a measure of his true insincerity regarding this issue and suspect that his ultimate goal is to undermine the skeptics' argument... remember, the best way to stab someone in the back is to first get behind them!
Ref Harry Hodge.
Whilst I understand where you are coming from Harry, I think we need to cut Mr Harrabin some slack.
In his most recent article (16 02 10 on BBC site), Roger Harrabin attempts to broker a different approach, an "armistis" which, on the face of it, is a good thing. I know that he cannot stop himself from betraying his position by describing the panel as "independent" and describing that some highly intelligent bloggers ""claim" an impressively broad knowledge of climate science despite their lack of formal credentials" (a very back handed compliment if ever there was one).
Looking at life from Mr Harrabin's POV, he will undoubtedly be shocked and dissappointed that he is increasingly perceived as lacking a basic journalistic enquiring mind. I am sure that he would hate the idea that he is perceived as an establishment lackie/publicist and I am sure that he is aware that this is now affecting his professional standing.
Recent moves by Mr Harrabin should therefore be taken at face value and lets give him a chance. I do agree though, a piece on the Muir Russel panel members and Mr Boulton's involvement specifically (did you see Steve McIntyre's piece referencing the author of the "Issues Paper" as being Boulton?
An "independent" enquiry funded by the UEA, comprising ex colleagues of the protagonists, some of whom have prestated views that are at complete odds to the stated requirements of members - that'll get to the truth then!?! (As SMcIintyre wrote, you couldn't make this stuff up).
If I was Mr Harrabin, I would take some of the major issues raised in the blogosphere and investigate them - i.e. from a sceptic standpoint and see what he finds - he may find some good stories and repair his reputation at the same time.
I quite agree.
Reqest to: Roger Harrabin
In addition to the other journalistic pieces suggested above, you may wish to consider doing a piece that looks into tthe links between the AGW debate with the closure of the Corus Steel Works tomorrow (19th Feb 2010).
Whilst Phil Jones deals with the fallout of uncontrollable forces damaging his ability to earn money in his chosen profession - so do 1600 workers from Corus!
You could ask questions like:
How much money will Tata make from the sale of carbon credits as a result of the ceasing of production of steel at Corus and transferring the very same production to India?
Why, if there is no reduction in actual steel, or CO2 production in this transfer, will Tata be able to make 100s of millions of £s in carbon credits - which are supposed to be there to help "save the planet" .
How much money does someone like say, Al Gore, make from carbon trading without there being any reduction in the production of CO2?
Maybe you could go on to do a Q & A with a Corus Steel worker to establish what it feels like to find your career, your self worth and your ability to earn money, damaged by malignant forces that undermine your work and career without any basis in science.
You could put some questions to the steel workers from the "alarmist" camp along the lines of:
"I know that you have lost your job, your career, your economic security, your ability to take care of your family, etc, but aren't you happy that the steel you were making is now to be made in India and that there will be no overall loss in steel production or CO2 production and the company that used to employ you will make 100s of millions of pounds from Cap and Trade in the process, and so will the carbon trading markets, and maybe even Al Gore and Dr Pachauri will make a few bob along the way - surely you recognise this as a good thing?
Although I think a part of your proposal çoguna more information on the site I believe I needed to be updated