Wednesday
Feb032010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Newsnight turns
Feb 3, 2010 BBC Climate: RP Jnr Climate: WG2 Climate: WG3 BBC's flagship current affairs programme, Newsnight, had climate change as its headline news tonight, with an interesting piece about a largely unnamed group of scientists meeting in the UK to discuss what to do with climate science, an interview with Doug Keenan, and a television debate between Chris Field, head of IPCC WGII, and Roger Pielke Jnr.
Good stuff, but probably not viewable outside the UK.
Update on Feb 3, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Roger's take on the head to head with Field is here.
Reader Comments (36)
Can anyone upload this important interview on to youtube please.
Chris Field, head of IPCC WGII, and Roger Pielke Jnr.
Mike
At the BBC the climate has changed.
The enviros - Black, Shukman and von Harrabin - are stuck with their original message. Like soldiers in the jungle who don't know the war has been lost.
The BBC are using others like Andrew Neil and other news journoes to bring the new angle to this subject.
Roger Pielke came over as very reasonable whereas it could clearly be seen that Chris Field was avoiding the questions and denying the undeniable.
I thought Dr. Pielke was excellent - a bit too luke-warmish for my taste, but very convincing nevertheless. He kept his answers short and too the point, and came over as being very authoritative - unlike his opponent, Dr. Field, who seemed to have got stuck in deny-and-bluster mode.
Talk about a week being a long time in (climate change) politics. Wasn't so long ago that the whole world and his dog were moaning that the MSM were ignoring Climate Gate (or "Email-Gate", as Kirsty Wark called it on Newsnight last night). Now it's all over the shop - at least in the UK. Today we've even got George Monbiot over at the Guardian calling for the head of Dr. Phil Jones.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qnxhz/Newsnight_02_02_2010/
Tyhe BBC iPlater should work anywhere. Link above
Great stuff. I wrote a complaint to the Newsnight editor about their editorial judgements on this issue a month or so ago. I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one either. Good to see they are now tackling this issue head on.
If you try to use the BBC's iPlayer outside of the UK you will get the message:
"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only, but all BBC iPlayer Radio programmes are available to you"
But you CAN view the Newsnight interview here, wherever you are:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8494793.stm
(h/t to EU Referendum: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/worth-snigger-or-two.html)
Oh dear we have been cut off
This is the hotel where the mysterious group mentioned in the Newsnight film is staying: Hartwell House.
http://gouk.about.com/od/hotelsandaccommodations/fr/hartwlhouse.htm
I recognised the staircase and the house. Once used by an exiled French monarch. Not cheap. Who's paying?
OFF TOPIC
Your Grace,
With all of this rampant global warming and the record mild winter ...
A new record low temperature - from CHINA!
I was speaking to a friend who has family in north eastern China, apparently the oilfield town of Daqing (near the Russian border, due north of North Korea) has had temperatures down to -40 C. Too cold for cars to work!
Apparently this is the coldest temp recorded there in the 40 or so years that records have been kept.
For those outside the UK who want to watch this, Newsnight is usually uploaded as a torrent to the UKNova site. I'm waiting for it to appear so I can download it.
I saw the interview with Nigel Lawson and the very creepy indeed Prof Bob Watson (former IPCC chairman) on Channel 4 News.
A few AGW-diehard hacks such as Pearce have been slightly knocked off their perch by Climategate and the IPCC shenanigans. They might, so help us, start spilling beans. AGW critics in the Tory Party scored a point when the Select Committee was announced as it will put all the evidence into the public domain. And so on.
It all adds up to a bit of a sticky moment for Russell Muir and his wretched "Review". As we all know, this was always going to be a whitewash. (If not, why choose such a discredited person to run it?)
When Muir does report, how to defuse the obvious criticism? Fall back on a tried and tested PR tactic - have the press "discussion" in advance of the report so that by the time the report comes out it's a dead story.
So, start with a statement out of the blue that tells nobody anything from a hitherto silent Phil Jones protesting his injured innocence (but on no account put him in front of the cameras), wheel out the likes of Watson to spin the line and, for form's sake, get a couple of "denialists" to make the thing look balanced.
As it happens, the latter wipe the floor with Jones's apologists but that was probably to be expected and doesn't really matter - what does matter in PR terms is that you're getting the public tired of the story before it really becomes one and lowering its priority with editors.
Why else did such a trivial event as a statement from a nobody about nothing hit Newsnight and Channel 4 on the same evening in time for both to set up TV "debates"? Because the editors had been briefed. Ensure that the public perception is that there is no story. Who cares about reality - this is politics.
That's what press officers do and it's what they're paid for. It might not work - but more often than not it does.
Some of your readers - although perhaps not that many - may be unfamiliar with the concept of "Groupthink". The excerpt below is from the Wikepedia entry on it, which is worth a look. It does provide a very interesting checklist against which to evaluate the AGW issue. Particularly interesting to me, in the context of what the "Climategate" e-mails have revealed, is the idea of "mind guards".
-------------------------------------------
Symptoms of groupthink
To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink (1977).
1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8. Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking[5]
1. Incomplete survey of alternatives
2. Incomplete survey of objectives
3. Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
4. Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
5. Poor information search
6. Selection bias in collecting information
7. Failure to work out contingency plans.
Janis argued that groupthink was responsible for the Bay of Pigs 'fiasco' and other major examples of faulty decision-making. The UK bank Northern Rock, before its nationalisation, is thought to be a recent major example of groupthink.[5] In such real-world examples, a number of the above groupthink symptoms were displayed.
---------------------------------------------------
Brian E:
It seems like groupthink applies not only to the Climategate conspirators, but also to the government (and opposition and parliament.... the list could go on).
Is it not about time the BBC seized back the control of Newsnight from the Washinton Neocons?
Sorry to post again but my wife has just pointed out (while laughing at my naivety) that last night's Newsnight was hosted by one Kirsty Wark. She has notoriously close links with the Scottish Labour Party (whose ranks include several Westminster ministers inc a beleaguered Prime one).
She also sees herself as one of the great and good on the arts scene and was on the panel that selected the architect for Scotland's new parliament building. Sadly, the chap chosen died before the project was finished.
As you know, the UEA's "Review" is chaired by Russell Muir, who was reprimanded by the Fraser Inquiry into the parliament's runaway costs.
It emerged that Wark's TV production company had recorded hours of interviews with key players in the project, including many with the deceased architect. They were made for an upcoming vanity documentary and were, obviously, potentially important evidence. Wark refused to make them available even to Lord Fraser on a behind-closed-doors basis. In the event, Fraser's report was a bit of damp squib and many up here felt that Wark had played a key role in a cover-up She also did pretty well out of the (dire) TV programme.
Want to kill a story involving the Labour government's last semi-credible policy and dodgy Scottish ex-civil servants looking for a bit of help with dirty deeds? Need a tame, Labour-friendly editor?
Call Kirsty. Who else? She's even got some "previous" with Muir. Her Wiki entry gives a fair account, noting that ". . . controversies have led to questions about her ability to behave impartially".
Quite. But you can at least be pretty sure that she won't stop Prof Field shouting at Roger Pielke.
In short, His Grace might be guilty of believing too well of his flock. The only turning going on on Kirsty's watch on Newsnight is things turning nasty. Jones's "mea minima culpa" was unarguably a press spoiler for the Muir review and an attempt to stitch up critics in advance - credit to RP for coming out of it well.
Meanwhile, I see that Sunny Hundal has launched a righteous attack on the BBC for Newsnight.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/bbc-climate-change-denier
It seems that the BBC leads the mainstream media as a bastion for climate change denial.
Wow! That REALLY is news - and you read it first in the Guardian : better tell biased-bbc about that - next thing you know the BBC will be trying to lead us out of the EUtopia into a rightwing NuToffdom with a pertrait of Margaret Thatcher as the new BBC logo!
Ian E,
Was just about to post abouit the very same thing. The BBC can be accused of many things but a bastion for climate "deniers" is not one of them.
Have you heard the sound of liberals bleating...
Dave B:
You obviously know more about Wark than I do and she certainly did not get Field to stop interrupting Roger, but I thought she actually was pretty supportive of Roger Pielke and essentially called Field and the IPCC on the two major and embarrassing errors. Did I miss something?
Bishop,
You may remember that, like you, I was promoted to Level 1 censorship by the Guardian last year. Level 1 seems to be an automatic bar, a status which you also appear to enjoy (anything you post is automatically deleted at the "post" stage)
So I was thinking of wearing a home made "The Guardian censors me" badge of pride to a meeting I'm having with some DECC people next week.
However, on trying out my weekly curiosity "test" post to the Guardian today, it seems they have demoted me back down to Level 2 ("held for moderation"). This is a more common status which I think is held by a lot of people.
Wonder whether there has been a change in Guardian policy, and so you have also been demoted to Level 2. Perhaps you should test it out too?
Or maybe Level 1 people all just do a couple of months in some sort of Guardian "cooler" and are then re-instated by the IT.
It does make you wonder how many people are censored by the Guardian, particularly as it seems they are still getting 100s of sceptical posts on every climate article they publish?
I'm touched by the now many seemingly genuine Guardian posts from people claiming to be research scientists of varoius sorts expressing concern about suppression of debate, seemingly thinking the Guardian shares their ethical values. Guess they are probably equally unaware of how Wikipedia is also manipulated?
Dave B - I reckon you got it about right. By letting Field rant and not answer the Roger's main charge, Kirsty effectively made Field look defensive and evasive, which of course nearly all AGW proponents seem to be now.
Remember too that journalists like Kirsty, who have a reasonably good reputation to protect, are going to try and be as fair and truthful as possible - it is simply not in their short or long term interests to do otherwise.
Like many, including t those at the BBC, I have only realised in the last couple of months how bad the foundations for AGW are. Climategate was a real wake up call and even tho' many have been shouting scam for many years a lot of us are still sleepily trying to 'wake up and smell the coffee.'
But I hope we are getting there.
It's all OK now - I see the Telegraph today telling us that the Climate Data from UEA is "Rock Solid", there are no appreciable errors in the data, Wang was cleared of any wrongdoing and Jones will be reinstated.
Don't about anyone else, but I'm relieved ... move along, nothing to see here, it's all over -- and they can all get back to the trough very soon.
"Did I miss something?"
Fair point - probably not. I hadn't seen the Newsnight piece when I commented on the Channel 4 report and so didn't mention it. I have since seen only the first part of it for whatever YouTube reason and relied for my quip (and that's all it was) at the end on Roger P's comment that "Instead, Professor Field tried to talk over me and deny, deny, deny".
If you were to say that that was sloppy, I'd probably agree (but don't expect me to be gracious about it . . .). To make it worse, I hinted that Jones did not appear in front of the cameras - I should have said that he didn't face his critics, especially as I'd watched the brief Ch 4 interview with Jones. (A senior moment.)
In my defence, my substantive point was that I was (I am) convinced that the story was a spoiler to bury later reporting of Muir's "review" - the "denialists" have had their day in the sun, there's nothing there, same old, same old . . . Editors will say, "But we had all that crap last week . . . "
Conviction changed to certainty when I cottoned on that it was Our Kirsty at Newsnight's helm. I'm not saying that Paxman would have done a better job (I think he's over-rated) but he is less pliable than Wark who is notorious for her Labour links. The obvious thing to have said is "Why are we covering this now and not when Muir reports? Let's leave it till then."
(BTW, Wark has every right to make whatever political choices or allegiances she chooses but I'm far from convinced that those she has made befit her role as a senior BBC news presenter. Her work has at times been too partisan to be called professional and has landed the BBC in trouble before.)
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see any BBC volte face in this. The fact that KW was balanced doesn't IMHO change that. (She's certainly no fool.)
A big concern for government is to stem a growing tide of criticism of its AGW agenda. This includes downplaying the Muir report. "Spoiling" a story is standard spin-doctor stuff.
Channel 4 and Newsnight both cover the story on the same night - and a night when there was no significant development to report? A non-news item as Ch 4 lead?
It doesn't add up. I smelt a rat.
Mark, Edinburgh
I have only ever been on level 2. I got an amusing explanation of the reason from the mods, which I'll post on sometime.
Following is a more complete version that is visible outside the UK. This is not the same URL posted by RPJr on his site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8495875.stm
Yes, yer grace, save it for a slow news day. And keep us guessing :)
Anthony Watts has been contacted by Roger Harrabin of the Beeb to request his help, full story at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/03/bbc-asks-wuwt-for-help/#more-15999
Personally I would be very sceptical of such a venture. What pun, I see no pun.
There seems to be a tide change but there are certain individuals that I would still be concerned about.
It was most pleasant watching Susan Watts eat shit...
o/t: cross posting from the comments at order-order (http://order-order.com/2010/02/03/finking-is-not-enough/)
"Analysis: Are environmentalists bad for the environment"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00q3cnl
Very scary, proto-fascist nonsense. Apologies if it's already been posted.
Exciting to live in these times of rapid and abrupt climate change. Even the BBC seems to have reached the tipping point and MSM seems to be globally warming to the sceptics.
I wonder if some kind soul could download those interviews for us non-poms to view?
oops Pasteur01 thanks for that
@Ian E and others
TIDE CHANGE - MY A***!
There was an aside mention in one of the Guardian's comments about the real reason for covering the AGW story in the way it has. See the recent WUWT. The Guardian has noted that its position remains that Global Warming is happening and it must be addressed, but that the political situation has become more difficult to push this belief through.
It is now involved in damage limitation, and has commissioned Fred Pearce to write a series of pieces indicating that, though some CRU scientists may have made mistakes, the fundamental science is sound. That is what you are rejoicing about.....
The BBC appears to be working closely with the Guardian - Sunny Hundal's piece is frankly inexplicable unless you assume that the BBC REQUESTED it to be written - because they are going to need a defence to the charge that they are biased once they start fighting on behalf of Global Warming, and occasional pieces like this can be presented as 'attacks from both sides', thus indicating a happy medium....
Wark was characteristically inept; the (mis)quote about being savaged by a wet sponge comes to mind. Lack of control, no idea what she was talking about and dumb questions. Why spend time on the non-issue of whether they are going to apologise while ignoring the real issues? BBC Hopeless.
I thought that was an excellent program. The BBC coverage of climate issues has been incredibly one-sided until very recently, and Newsnight is a very popular program so this will have reached a large audience. The opening up of debate of this topic in the media feels like the sudden lifting of censorship - really heartwarming.
Sometimes Newsnight items can be a bit flippant, but this one was very direct and hard hitting.
Because of UK climate change policies, Britain is in real danger of entering an era when we only have enough electricity when the wind blows! I really hope Newsnight has a go on this issue soon!
The Guardian are running a series whitewashing the CRU crimes at the moment, written by Fred Pearce.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/fredpearce
They censored my link to Doug Keenan's peer reviewed report of the Chinese UHI scandal, which actually ended up in court, and banned me for reposting it.
The Fraud Allegation Against Wei-Chyung Wang
One of the main studies cited by the report to justify that conclusion substantially relies on the claims that Wang fabricated—indeed, Wang is a co-author of the study.The study is authored by Jones et al. (1990). It treats not only China (where Wangwas responsible for supplying the data), but also Russia and Australia (where Wanghad no responsibility). The regions of Russia and Australia are not considered here,but there is some evidence that they too are problematic.
http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf